Vatican Document Calls Celibacy Non-Negotiable

The San Diego Channel ^ | 6/28/03 | Associated Press

[Chancellor Palpatine]

That was an ugly and cheap shot.

[saradippity]

Smedleybutler may have been explaining the content of the post to which I am responding, to someone other than you,so you may not have had an oppurtunity to see his answer laid out before you. This entire thread has had some very important information regards the celibacy question.

If I were you I would go back and pay special attention to what Smedley says. It is not often that one can find such impeccable documentation on a subject.He has covered every little verse that people pull out of context to prove something they cannot prove and refuted it or demonstrated how it could mean something different than you and some others interpret it to mean.

You and others who consistently ask the same questions and present the same flawed interpetation of scripture and early church writings as well as the same inablility to comprehend the answerss previously given,do yourselves a disservice. You significantly diminish your own credibility,thereby making all of your comments suspect.

[JohnnyZ]

That was an ugly and cheap shot.

Deserved, and right on.

[RobbyS]

Of course the Bible permits church officers to marry, but it does not prefer that they be. It may be that the best model is that ot the Greek Church, where local pastors are married. But the Greeks have such a reverence for monks that they accept the many priests who are not married and the Church allows only the celibate to be bishops. Do you deny that Baptist congregations prefer that pastor be married, and is this not a man-made rule? How many would even consider someone like Paul?

[RobbyS]

Thr priest in question seems to have had a child by this woman. I think it is less a matter of rape than of child support. Not edifying either way, and shows the Bishop's poor judgement, but this is nothing compared with the Kos affair.

[ThomasMore]

You need to learn some manners, young fella!

What you're dishing out is malicious slander. You don't know who sinkspur hangs with, so chillit, son! It sounds to me like you need to spend some time with your local priest in the confessional.

A little charity goes a long way!

God bless you!
TM

[DallasMike]

Of course the Bible permits church officers to marry

Excellent. Then I suppose you would agree with the logical conclusion that the Catholic Church requirement that priests be celibate is an unbiblical practice.

Do you deny that Baptist congregations prefer that pastor be married, and is this not a man-made rule? How many would even consider someone like Paul?

You are correct, and I have stated in previous discussions on this topic that I disagree with Baptists on their preference for married pastors. I'm equal opportunity when it comes to battling unbiblical doctrine. However, I would argue that the Baptist preference for married pastors has not done even a small fraction of the damage that the Catholic requirement for celibate priests has. Both are wrong, but one is more damaging than the other.

[RobbyS]

sink may be on the left, but many of us on the right share his feelings about bishops. His bishop is an example of Peter's principle. He even refuses to take hints from Rome that he should retire. They sent him a co-adjutor. He not only refuses to retire but fights with the man who is his intended replacement.

[DallasMike]

If I were you I would go back and pay special attention to what Smedley says. It is not often that one can find such impeccable documentation on a subject.He has covered every little verse that people pull out of context to prove something they cannot prove and refuted it or demonstrated how it could mean something different than you and some others interpret it to mean.

I argue that the following verse plainly permits church officers (pastors, priests, bishops, whatever) to be married:

"Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher..." 1 Timothy 3:2

Tell me What am I pulling out of context in the verse?

I have paid attention to what Smedley says, and what Smedley says is wrong. I haven't seen anything from him that constitutes impeccable documentation either. I asked him to direct me to the "uncorrupted text" he keeps talking about when Paul refers to the wives of the apostles travelling with him. The best he can do is tell me to go to Rome.

The fact is that Smedley and others are trying to defend the indefensible. Requiring priests to be celibate is plainly unbiblical and is not something that was practiced by the early Church. History and the Bible are on my side; the ability to hurl insult after insult is on Smedley's side.

[JohnnyZ]

He even refuses to take hints from Rome that he should retire. They sent him a co-adjutor. He not only refuses to retire but fights with the man who is his intended replacement.

Is he over 70 (or whatever the age is now) and refusing to send his resignation? If he's not over the age he has the right to stick around, to do his job, for good or ill.

[sinkspur]

Lay group asks nuncio to remove Dallas Bishop Grahmann.

[saradippity]

Requiring priests to be celibate is plainly wrong>

You have either not read everything he wrote or you cannot understand it. History and the Bible are not on your side,at least accurately reported and maintained history. Fabricated to suit mans' need to be God probably is. Be careful.

[JohnnyZ]

I'm generally not in favor of having bishops resign. Ideally they will change their behavior and continue with their vocation. But the change of behavior needs to be there. That's what Grahamnhnhn is trying to argue, I think, with the "post-97" stuff, but I'm not prepared to judge one way or the other

[RobbyS]

Where does Scripture say that celibacy is a danger to the faith? I mean, where does it say that marriage is the preferred state? The example of Our Lord is otherwise. His message is to give up all and follow him. Not everyone can far in imitation of Christ. But to those who have the call, then certainly a life of celibacy is the way to go. The problem of the Catholic Church in the past years is not celibacy but infidelity: unfaithful to the call, unfaithfulness to the teachings of the Church. Again: the requirement is only for the few. Those who have another call, then by all means,follow that one.

[ninenot]

Some posters do not understand that the Church uses both Scripture AND Tradition in its Magisterium.

Usually those who don't understand the Tradition part are Protestants--or dangerously CLOSE to being Prots.

[JohnnyZ]

Usually those who don't understand the Tradition part are Protestants--or dangerously CLOSE to being Prots.

You mean like Southern Catholics?

just kidding, I LOVE southern Catholics, but they are totally half evangelical I am so not kidding

[RobbyS]

Better that than being a New England Catholic, who is dangerously close to being a liberal and therefore half-way to atheism.

[connectthedots]

The Catholic Church's celibacy requirement for priests is non-negotiable.

Then why are all these homosexual and pedophile priests still on the payroll?

[JohnnyZ]

{chuckle}

I had heard it this way before:

Better that than being a New England Catholic, who is dangerously close to being an Episcopalian and therefore half-way to atheism.

just kidding I totally love Episcopalians, but not as much as Methodists