Time to Abolish Clerical Celibacy

frontpagemag.com ^ | January 3, 2002 | Jamie Glazov

[CubicleGuy]

It is not merely a "claim of antiquity." It is a claim of tradition built from the time that Christ named Peter as the first head of His Church: St. Peter, the first Pope.

All I saw was somebody saying, hey, buddy, your church is only 40 years old, whereas mine is 2000.

You didn't say anything about tradition, but I admit to wandering into the middle of the discussion, so I guess I missed it.

Traditions, by the way, have been known to become incorrect and altered over time, for what it's worth.

[TN Republican]

Born in Blood: The Lost Secrets of Freemasonry, by John J. Robinson, M. Evans & Company, New York, 1989, p. 261. ISBN 0-87131-602-1

[TN Republican]

Cite????

[patent]

patent, I said goodbye very nicely.

You post to a public forum. You make assertions. I challenge some of them. You chose not to respond to that, running off. You do, however, continue to argue the issue with others. I guess I will continue to respond if I like. I am sorry if that bothers you.

You are free to believe whatever it is you wish, but I think it's really amusing that you have labeled me a "liberal Protestant". No, not amusing, but absolutely rolling-on-the-floor, tears-streaming-down-the-face, gasping-for-breath, belly laughing, fud-ruckingly, hysterically unbelievable.

;-) Then don’t act like one. You know what the Church is, don’t distort the teaching in the liberal fashion and I won’t call you a liberal.

At least you left me happy. But it would be nice, if just once, you could leave out your silly personal labels, especially since you come to such enormously wrong conclusions.

You have done your own labels, insinuating sinkspur is aligned with catholics for a free choice and the like. Seems a bit hypocritical to whine about it. You handle yourself just fine in amidst any flame wars, even ones as mild as this.

The statement I made about being labeled a "heretic" was just a bit of hyperbole and you know that very well. I posted the Encyclical for all to read. Silly man.

Very good. Then what do you consider the Popes who changed the Rite of the Mass after Quo Primum?

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

Same as your cite. A book full of completely made up garbage.

patent

[Redleg Duke]

"I heard that Luther liked raping small kids and sacrificing virgins to the “god” Baal on his altar, and that he only left the Catholic Church when the local Bishop found out and stopped him."

Yep, you just can't beat a good Catholic School education!

[patent]

>>>Yep, you just can't beat a good Catholic School education!

It was sarcasm, a silly outlandish claim in response to a silly outlandish claim.

Unfortunately I was largely educated in public schools, much to my dismay.

patent

[Redleg Duke]

patent, you make the Taliban laid-back and compassionate by comparison to your vitrol.

If such hatred is the product of your "religion", then somewhere, your "religion" has lost the spirit and teachings of Jesus Christ.

You have my pity, for you live in a dark world of fear and loathing.

[patent]

Well, at least you didn't call me a Nazi, though I suspect the Taliban name will replace that for a time.

>>>If such hatred

Can I ask what in particular makes you think I hate, and what or who it is that I hate?

Thanks,

patent

[fdcc]

You originally wrote:

Back before every bishop had to report to the pope in Rome, a priest was allowed to be married. After Gregory VII, as part of a general effort to consolidate and control the Catholic franchise, the clergy was informed that they were to give up their wives. If you didn't agree, your wife was abducted and sold into slavery.

I asked for a source and you replied with:

Born in Blood: The Lost Secrets of Freemasonry, by John J. Robinson, M. Evans & Company, New York, 1989, p. 261. ISBN 0-87131-602-1

Thank you. The quality of this contribution is now piercingly clear.

[CubicleGuy]

Again, the only excuse for changing a Divinely-received covenant is when you receive a new Divinely-ordained covenant.

You'll get no argument from me on that.

(Gold plates that nobody can produce,...

As if having the plates would prove anything besides the fact that there were gold plates. Would you then complain that Joseph was a fraud because he couldn't produce an angel on demand as well?

... written in a language that nobody has ever heard of,...

... as if every language that has ever been spoken on the planet in the history of the earth has left a record of itself...

... relating events that never took place,...

You can't prove a negative, at least, not without being omniscient. You can prove, however, that the first section of the Book of Mormon, which takes place in the Old World, betrays a posession of knowledge of Arabian geography (and other topics) which nobody can seem to explain in the case of an uneducated Joseph Smith.

... do not qualify.)

In your opinion. We do, however have the purported translated text of the gold plates, and it is a wonder in and of itself. Uneducated Joseph Smiths just don't produce a Book of Mormon every day. Write me another one yourself, just like it, if it's so easy to do, would you? If you can produce something that could pass as one of the sealed portions of the Book of Mormon, your anti-Mormon friends will pay you handsomely, no doubt.

[Orual]

You didn't say anything about tradition, but I admit to wandering into the middle of the discussion, so I guess I missed it.

Tradition was what the entire discussion was about, but it is difficult to follow the thread of a conversation that is taking place between two or three individuals unless one follows it from the beginning, and that is sometimes too tedious to do because other comments are interspersed between them.

Yes, traditions have been known to be changed, but in this instance there are no errors attendant to the traditions of the Catholic Church to which I referred.

[Orual]

The reason I don't continue to discuss these matters with you is because of your apparent incurable addiction to making personal, rude remarks. Perhaps you should try a 12-step program. I do my best to inject a bit of humor and levity, but you are so damn strident, patent. Lighten up. We have discussed these matters scores of times and your pattern of response is so predictable, although this is the first time you have called me a liberal Protestant.

I spent a lot of time responding to you - I felt it was the correct moment to end a discussion that was going nowhere, yet you choose to label it "running away". That's puerile. And I don't need to check with you if I choose to reply to others who have directed a comment to me. Jealous, patent? Oops, now you're going to explode again.

[patent]

The reason I don't continue to discuss these matters with you is because of your apparent incurable addiction to making personal, rude remarks. Perhaps you should try a 12-step program.

The last comment isn’t a personal, rude remark? Please, remove the plank in your eye.

And I don't need to check with you if I choose to reply to others who have directed a comment to me. Jealous, patent? Oops, now you're going to explode again.

I didn’t suggest you needed to check with me. I said that I will respond if I like. You are completely and entirely free to post as you like, and I won’t even suggest that you shouldn’t.

patent  +AMDG

[Orual]

I guess you don't appreciate my style of writing - the remark about the 12-step program was preceded by the phrase "incurable addiction". That was supposed to be funny. Like turning up the corners of your mouth and smiling. It wasn't meant as a personal insult as your remarks are.

You are completely and entirely free to post as you like, and I won’t even suggest that you shouldn’t.

Why, patent, I do believe you said something nice to me. Sort of. Thanks.

[patent]

>>>>>Why, patent, I do believe you said something nice to me. Sort of. Thanks.

I could probably say a number of nice things about you. I like your writing style, etc., though as I think we've hit before your biting "humor" is not so terribly funny when directed towards someone you are arguing with, where it gives the rather strong impression of trying to cut folks down.

I respect your morals, and the choice to follow a rigourous faith instead of caving to this world. Lots of things from there. We disagree on a couple points. Those things seem to rise to the top.

patent

[Redleg Duke]

I would submit to you that John J. Robinson was an exceptional scholar. Before you fly off on a "I hate Masons because they are a Satanic Cult" schtick, I think you need to know that Mr. Robinson was not associated with Free Masonry when he researched and wrote this book.

It was his research that led him to become a Mason late in his life, a process that he documented in his last book on the subject.

I would highly recommend that you read "Born in Blood" before you continue to attack, unless of course, you are either afraid of the truth, or your Priest or Bishop won't let you.

"You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

[Redleg Duke]

"Can I ask what in particular makes you think I hate, and what or who it is that I hate?"

The tenor and tone of your responses and dictates on this particular thread are of one who is intollerant of anyone whose opinions differ in the slightest from your own. This behavior appears to indicate contempt for any and all who do not meet your particular standards of religious "purity". Hence, the Taliban analog.

Calling you a Nazi would be intellectually lazy and inappropriate. I suspect that the term "Taliban" will become an label in the future for any and all people who take their religion to aggressive extremes.

As to who you hate, I would, from your numerous postings on this thread, suspect that the list would include all non-Christians, Protestants, and Roman Catholics in particular who do not meet your rigid standards of "purity of thought".

Now, have I answered your question in a civil enough manner, or will your inquisition continue to the logical conclusion of purification in fire after the requisite time on the rack and in the iron maiden?

[SoothingDave]

This behavior appears to indicate contempt for any and all who do not meet your particular standards of religious "purity".

How nice. A call for an end to contempt for those who hold a different religion.

Now, have I answered your question in a civil enough manner, or will your inquisition continue to the logical conclusion of purification in fire after the requisite time on the rack and in the iron maiden?

How nice. Because a Catholic asks you questions, you make oh so clever "inquisition" remarks. If only you saw the contempt you yourself show.

SD

[fdcc]

I would submit to you that John J. Robinson was an exceptional scholar. Before you fly off on a "I hate Masons because they are a Satanic Cult" schtick, I think you need to know that Mr. Robinson was not associated with Free Masonry when he researched and wrote this book.

A charge was made that the Church went around kidnapping and murdering the wives of Bishops to enforce clerical celibacy. The source for this comment is a book on the Masons. If the charge is true surely there must be another (and vaguely credible) source?

"You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

Yes it will. (And the truth isn't hidden by conspiracies or known only to secret societies.)