Posted on 07/13/2014 6:35:41 AM PDT by marshmallow
Pope Francis promised "solutions" to the issue of priestly celibacy in an interview on Sunday that raised the possibility the Catholic Church could eventually lift a ban on married priests, but was quickly refuted by the Vatican
VATICAN CITY: Pope Francis promised "solutions" to the issue of priestly celibacy in an interview on Sunday that raised the possibility the Catholic Church could eventually lift a ban on married priests, but was quickly refuted by the Vatican.
Interviewed by Italy's La Repubblica daily, Francis also condemned child sex abuse as a "leprosy" in the Church and cited his aides as saying that "the level of paedophilia in the Church is at two per cent".
"That two per cent includes priests and even bishops and cardinals," the pope was quoted as saying.
Asked whether priests might one day be allowed to marry, Francis pointed out that celibacy was instituted "900 years after Our Lord's death" and that clerics can marry in some Eastern Churches under Vatican tutelage.
(Excerpt) Read more at channelnewsasia.com ...
Yep, done with them!
Priests 1-2%
Ministers 2-3%
Government school teachers 5-10%
Maybe school teachers should be allowed to marry?
That is a good one! LOL
As you wish:
It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. (John 6:63)
Why are you wasting bandwidth with posts like this???
Same in my church, and yours. Same in any society, group or organization where people who are practiced deceivers do wicked things in secret.
metmom: Depending on extra Biblical revelation for truth is not the same as someone's interpretation of Scripture.
JP: Sure it is. For this construct assumes that an individual's interpretation of scripture is devoid of any extrabiblical influence. That Sacred Scripture is self-interpreting. Which as we can see from the last 500 years of history it is not.
The portion highlighted is the vital point that is often ignored when going down this road. The rest of the exchange afterward is just blah blah, because it's playing the Protestant game of "show me that in the Bible" which again, ignores the emphasized fact. And it is a fact.
Despite what some apparently believe around here, the Bible does NOT interpret itself. It just doesn't. And whether some want to admit it or not, everyone is influenced by some authority when they read and "interpret" Scripture "for themselves".
That is, unless one is completely devoid of all humility (much less reason) and therefore never ever consults Greek/Hebrew lexicons, or commentaries, or one's local pastor, or friends, or again, any other source of knowledge and experience.
This is the point. And where the conversation should end unless and until the Protestsant admits that they too, are "taught by men". Unless such an admission is forthcoming, the entire "discussion" is as utterly pointless as an exchange involving simply, "I'm right." "No, I'm right." "No I'm right". "No, I'm right".
Et cetera, ad infinitum.
Yes they do...Clergy in your religion however do wicked things within the cognizance of their superiors...And not only with their cognizance, but with their aid...
That's pretty noteworthy...If it happens in other religions, I am not aware of it...
Sigh.....
The Holy Spirit enlightens the believer to understand Scripture. No one has ever said that we do it in a vacuum.
Spiritual things are spiritually discerned and the person who does not have the Spirit in them cannot understand spiritual truths found in Scripture.
And yes, Scripture does interpret Scripture. It can because it is divinely inspired, it is Truth, it stands alone as Truth outside of anyone’s experience of it, and as Truth is internally consistent with itself.
It CANNOT contradict itself. If there is an apparent contradiction, then clearly the problem is with the interpretation of the passage in question. It then demands a closer look to see where the problem in interpretation is and that is done by comparing it to other passages of Scripture.
And exactly how is this accomplished? How does the Holy Spirit "enlighten" the believer?
Does He speak to you in an audible voice when you are reading Scripture?
Tell me, exactly, how He does it.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. - I Corinthians 2:13
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:1-9
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? - I Corinthians 6:19
Does He speak to you in an audible voice when you are reading Scripture?
Tell me, exactly, how He does it.
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
If you don't have that Spirit that bears witness, there is something wrong with your religion...The better question would be, How do I get that Spirit that witnesses to my spirit...
He gives understanding of spiritual matters when reading Scripture.
Before I was born again, I tried reading the Bible, and heard the Scripture readings in every mass, and the made ZERO sense to me. It just didn’t compute.
After I was born again, I went out and bought my own Bible started reading it and all the stuff made sense. It was so obvious what was being talked about that I didn’t see how I could have missed it the first time around.
I rarely hear what I would call an audible voice, but I have had God speak to my mind and heart, in words. You recognize the voice of your Shepherd.
I know that statements like that bring nothing but scorn and derision from others, but it is real, nonetheless.
A person without the Spirit of God dwelling in them cannot understand it. It’s like trying to describe light to a blind person or sound to a deaf person.
The light and sound are real enough. The problem is in the ability to perceive.
I rarely hear what I would call an audible voice, but I have had God speak to my mind and heart, in words. You recognize the voice of your Shepherd.
The times he speaks to your mind and your heart, how do you know it's him and not your imagination? How do you know it's not your opinion of what Scripture says?
This is the question I'm asking. I'm asking a real question, about *your* (anyone reading this really not just metmom) real experiences. What objective fact (or facts) do you utilize (if any) to determine the answers to the questions above? In other words, what things, what tools, necessarily outside yourself, that happen to you, and thus are "objective", do you use to determine the truth of this situation?
Your initial statement here, seems to make a distinction without a difference:
"Valuing chastity and virginity does not lead by default to valuing marriage. It's a society which values marriage that would value chastity and virginity."
True enough, but...
When I mentioned the common observation that respect for virginity/celibacy and respect for marriage tend to go up in tandem, my point was not that I have figured out the exact causal relationship. It could be that A causes B; it could be that B causes A; it could be that A and B simply mutually reinforce each other; it could be that both A and B are caused by C.
My own impression is all of the above is true in terms of a causal cluster, and special attention might be paid to the last one: A (a high view of celibacy) and B (a high view of marriage) are both caused by C (a sense that sex is sacred: call it the sanctity factor.)
One way the sanctity factor works out is this: in a sound society, people recognize that sex is a gift from God, both providential (part of that "wonderfully made" thing) and in a sense revelatory: one's being male or female helps reveal "how" we are to be human beings, in other words, what the design is for. And it's a Big Thing. Not a trivial thing (like the design of a gum wrapper) but a Great Design (like the Design of the Universe.)
I think this applies most fully to Christians, but not only to Christians. If you perceive the Tao (link, and worth a look) --- the sense of primordial order in the Universe (you could call it Natural Law) --- you can see that sex has a high purpose, and this inspires awe: it ought to be used in a holy and holistic way (sacred faithful fruitful union, marriage), or keep your hands off, and leave it respectfully and wholly alone (consecrated celibacy.)
People who have an insight into Natural Law --- which of course was put into the natural world by God the Creator --- aren't trying to split off sex into different exploitable fragments, with love, commitment, fertility, and pleasure separated from each and to be used as you like.
Christians can take an even deeper view of this, because we have actual supernatural revelation to ponder on the meaning of life and love.
In sorta short: if we think sex is sacred, we either consecrate our persons to each other in marriage --- if that's what we're called to, and most are ---for Christ our Lord; or we consecrate our singleness --- if that's what we're called to --- to Christ our Lord.
"It is not recommended by Jesus. He mentioned it and that it was not a hindrance. That is not recommending it or encouraging it."
Jesus certainly does commend it, and not just in that bit about Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven (a term which in itself is a commendation, right there) but because he commends detachment from all earthly ties, in aphorisms which are generally called "Hard Sayings". And you can see why:
Luke 14:26
|
And others, similar.
In this passage, He is of course not using "despise" in the sense of "loatheing or having contempt for" ("I despise the rotting garbage smell")but in the earlier sense: regarding as unworthy of one's ultimate interest or concern. ("The soldier despised any thought of his own safety").
Jesus says that to serve Him, we must de-prioritize all earthly things --- normal attachments, a normal family life, even our whole bodily life itself--- in order to serve Him alone.
This doesn't mean "be a deadbeat dad" or anything of the sort. That is condemned. It just means that the normal satisfactions which are naturally good, and which are blessed, are given up in favor of something even higher.
Commended? Yes.
| Revelation 14:4 They are the men who have kept themselves pure by not having sexual relations with women; they are virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They have been redeemed from the rest of the human race and are the first ones to be offered to God and to the Lamb. |
Or, a few more verses for context, and a different translation:
| Revelation 14:1-5 Then I looked again and before my eyes the Lamb was standing on Mount Sion, and with him were a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father’s name written upon their foreheads. Then I heard a sound coming from Heaven like the roar of a great waterfall and the heavy rolling of thunder. Yet the sound which I heard was also like the music of harpists sweeping their strings. And now they are singing a new song of praise before the throne, and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn that song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth. These are the men who have never defiled themselves with women, for they are celibate. These are the men who follow the Lamb wherever he may go; these men have been redeemed from among mankind as first-fruits to God and to the Lamb. They have never been guilty of any falsehood; they are beyond reproach. |
The eschatological thing again. "I am willing to give up these good things, in order to be the more attached to Christ."
Sure, it would be easy to misunderstand, or distort, or get this wrong in a neurotic or sinful sense; it is easier still to ignore it altogether and not let the full, radical implications sink in.
"SOME are called to celibacy. Not all. Those who can bear it are free to do so. That does not mean it's to be the norm for everyone."
Agreed. Not all are called to be priests, monks or nuns, either. These celibate vocations are truly minority callings.
"The thing that denigrates marriage is the constant harping on how special virginity is and how much more honorable it is."
That's an interesting comment, because I suppose it would be true if it happened, but I have never in my life heard any harping (let alone "constant harping") on virginity. In fact, it has been a weakness in the Catholic Church for years that celibacy and virginity are hardly mentioned. And you know very well that in secular society, celibacy and virginity are regarded as practically deformities or disabilities, almost as "the last Perversions."
The only time you hear of it is when somebody is campaigning against it! What an irony, what a loss.
"God said it was not good for man to be alone... The Catholic church teaches that if a man wants to be a priest, he better count on it or find some other line of work."
"Not good to be alone" does not mean "not good to lack a sexual partner." It means "Not good to be an isolated individual" --- because human beings were created to be intrinsically social, intrinsically relational to other people.
If "not good for the man to be alone" just meant "not good for him not to have a wife," then it would be morally obligatory for all men to marry, and all women too, until death. The kids would have to marry as soon as they left the house; the widows and widowers would have to re-marry into their 90's; lonely men whose wives had Alzheimer's or were physically/mentally disabled or long-term hospitalized and unable to function as wives, would be morally obliged to take new wives in order to avoid being "not-good"!
This is silly. I am writing like a fool. "Not good to be alone" means "not good to be isolated from others." It has marital application, but its meaning is not primarily marital, but social. Eve was good for Adam because together, with the help of the Lord, they produced a society: a family; all families; all nations; in short,the human race. We are not to be alone.
Gotta go now. See ya!!
Amen to that! Once I genuinely requested the guidance of the Holy Spirit things in scripture began to become so much clearer. Contradictions in teaching that brought doubt to my mind were cleared up and I could see how the teachings of many “churches” didn’t line up with scripture. And I can say that “freedom in Christ” took on a whole new meaning and the peace that passes all understanding is beyond anything I could have imagined.
” he MUST then become a priest.”
Not quite... :) If my wife dies before me, I have taken a vow of celibacy...nota vow to become a priest.
Deacon Francis
There are notorious cases where this was happening. For instance Marcial Maciel, the superior of the Legion of Christ (LC) religious order, was a sociopath, an absolutely brilliant master deceiver, and pulled the wool over the eyes of Pope John Paul II for years, simply because JP2 couldn't believe that this outwardly devout, holy, wonderfully effective priest could be leading a double life and having sexual relations with both young men and women.
This is similar to the case of Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity, formerly of Scranton, PA, who was allowed to resurrect his discredited Society of St. John (SSJ) IN PARAGUAY after he had been defrocked and banned by Bishop Martino in Scranton for "unchastity, disobedience and outright rebellion," which made him “unfit for ministry.”
So how did he end up in Uruguay? Presumably because the Bishop of the Diocese of Ciudad del Este is unlawfully incardinating (sponsoring) him.
How long will it take to root him out of Uruguay, and the enabling Bishop as well? I suppose as long as it takes for Cardinal Muller over at CDF in Rome to collect evidence, get depositions, and come down hard. This is difficult when the Bishop is stalling, and none of it involves stuff that's illegal in secular law, such as: none of it involved minors, and sex between adult men is not criminalized in the secular legal code. Which means you can't go to the cops, and the Church itself of course does not have an enforceable power of subpoena.
(Where's the Roman Inquisition when you really need it???)
You don't hear about this kind of thing in organizations which do not have as many active whistleblowers as the Catholic Church does. How would I, for instance, know about the wo depravced priests mentioned above, except for whistleblowers who take it straight to the Internet?
The whole business with Maciel and Urrutigoity is gravely sinful and truly disturbing. But once again, it's not a case of "Catholics acting like Catholics," but a case of "sinners sinning."
Stuff like this happened repeatedly at the Rescue Mission in Asheville, NC (a Protestant charitable organization aiding poor people and addicts), staff I'd guess about 15, and it roiled around for years and, as far as I know, never made the press, not even in Asheville.
No surprising that the same stuff pops up in a Church spread across the 6 inhabited continents with a flock of 1.2 billion. What IS surprising, perhaps, is that it is quite a bit less prevalent in the Catholic Church than elsewhere.
Thanks but I’d refer you as well to my post 273.
Oh that happens from time to time. But it doesn’t take long for something to come to my attention that corrects anything that comes from my carnal mind. Sometimes it’s just a feeling that something just doesn’t fit. I pray for guidance on the subject and the Holy Spirit will direct me to a certain passage in scripture that clarifies. If you are truly looking for truth and genuinely ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit I can assure you He will take away many of the preconceived ideas that you were taught by man. Never ever take man’s word without checking with scripture. Scripture always has at least two or three references to any subject.
>>How do you know it's not your opinion of what Scripture says?<<
If it’s my “opinion” it won’t fit with the whole of scripture.
I can just about guarantee that there is at least one subject about the Catholic Church that gives you pause or causes you to question. Start there.
Thanks for the honest reply. But that's really just ignoring the question as one should still ask, "How do you know what you believe to be a 'fit' with the rest of Scripture isn't just your opinion that it 'fits'"?
I can just about guarantee that there is at least one subject about the Catholic Church that gives you pause or causes you to question. Start there.
I won't lie and say there isn't from time to time. I am human after all. But I don't see a reason to go with your methodology until and unless I can be convinced it has a reasonable possibility (real possibility) of being free from the error I've described (my own personal opinion contaminating the study).
Do you agree it's all too easy for every single person who has ever lived to fool themselves into believing they are "right", when objectively they are not? Do you agree that's a danger for every person?
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.