Posted on 06/28/2003 5:12:23 PM PDT by MVV
UPDATED: 4:42 p.m. EDT June 28, 2003
That's the word from the Vatican.
The celibacy rule was reaffirmed in a wide-ranging document issued Saturday.
It acknowledges that fewer and fewer men are signing up for the priesthood. But it says letting priests marry isn't the answer.
Instead, it says current priests should dedicate themselves to attracting more candidates by better explaining the priesthood to lay Catholics, and by encouraging children to consider religious vocations.
The document touched on a host of other issues, including a call for Europe to be more welcoming to immigrants.
It also called for the "full participation" of women in the life of the church. But the Vatican says that doesn't mean as priests, since only men can be ordained.
Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Then why are all these homosexual and pedophile priests still on the payroll?
The pedophiles need to go, and most of that had been cleaned up (no or few new ones getting in) even before the recent mess.
But celibacy applies to both normal and gay sex. Neither is allowed, but if they do happen neither is an automatic ouster from the active priesthood. Priests are sinners, human like everyone else, and under great temptation. If they fail they can and should be helped back up to the straight and narrow.
Some things are worse than others, however, and obviously pedophile and pederast sex is beyond the pale.
In the bad old days he'd just be exiled.
So tell me where I'm wrong -- I can be educated.
- Is it not a fact that the Bible says Peter was married? (1 Corinthians 9:5 and others)
- Is it not a fact that the Bible says other Apostles were married? (1 Corinthians 9:5)
- Is it not a fact that Paul specifically grants church officers the right to be married? (1 Timothy 3:1-14)
- Is it not a fact that history tells us several of the early popes were married. (Married Popes -- I realize that this site is biased, but it has a handy table. There is no doubt that there have been married popes, the only argument is on how many. Some say up to 39 popes were married.)
Where am I wrong on any of these things? Note that I provided links to the NAB Catholic Bible. Telling me to "go to Rome" like Smedley does and calling me ignorant does not constitute a well-reasoned argument. Smedley even disagrees with the NAB Catholic Bible and claims that it's based on corrupted texts. Of course he won't direct me to the uncorrupted texts.
The Bible and history are pretty plain on these things and they are on my side. Not one of these things is exactly rocket science to understand.
Scripture nowhere says that celibacy is a danger to the faith. However, it specfically states that pastors, priests, deacons, bishops etc. are allowed to be married if they wish. Current Catholic practice is contrary to that plainly stated scripture. Do you disagree with this?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.
Requiring priests to be celibate is the problem because it violates scripture. The amazing thing is that people wonder why so many priests slip into sin. It's like requiring my dog to speak German and then being surprised when he fails. The Catholic Church is placing a burden on priests that many aren't able to handle. The end result is sin.
This is all JPII's fault . . . how? Bishops bitch and moan every time the Vatican even suggests they do anything about anything -- they bring up the "Pope is but first among equals" thing, we'll do what we want; which is basically true, but selectively applied. The Pope is not the boss of the bishops like the bishops are the bosses of their diocesan priests.
If JPII was the problem, how come the abuse thing was not worldwide? It was almost entirely in America, with a few in other countries. Put the blame where it belongs, on naive, misguided or gay-pandering bishops in America who weren't willing to stomp on the 1-2% of priests who committed those horrible crimes, and who then did everything they could to please the media with zero-tolerance policies, passing the buck, when the scandal hit rather than take responsibility and do the right thing.
I never asserted such a thing! Here's a sample of what I've written in recent posts:Look at my post #365. I said "[The Bible] specfically states that pastors, priests, deacons, bishops etc. are allowed to be married if they wish."Where in the world did you come up with your statement? Do you even read what I write?Look at my post #350. I said "[The Bible] verse plainly permits church officers (pastors, priests, bishops, whatever) to be married."
Look at my post #348. I said "I disagree with Baptists on their preference for married pastors."
Look at my post #333. I said "The Bible specifically permits holders of church offices to be married. We know by the example of Paul and others that they don't have to be married, and that it can be a good thing not to be married.
I would argue that the ratio of married priests, pastors, etc. ought to approximate the ratio of unmarried lawyers, truck drivers, and engineers. One is not to be preferred over the other. Clergy should not be required to marry nor should they be required to be single. I don't know how I could've made it any clearer.
You would be wrong then because the Bible clearly states that celibacy is a gift that is given to some, not all. Read what Paul wrote. Everyone who marries though is required to be faithful to their spouse.The argument you use against celibacy is the same as many Protestants use to justify divorce and their practice what has been called "serial polygamy."
The argument I use against required celibacy is that it is blatantly and plainly unbiblical. That's a fact. Read 1 Timothy 3:1-14 and tell me how you can reconcile it with the belief that priests must not marry.I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm supporting divorce or serial polygamy. That's nonsense and I'm offended by your statement.
" The Catholic Church puts a burden on priests that many cannot bear. Well, the Church also puts a burden on married couples that many cannot bear: that they cannot re-marry in the Church after divorce. There are 50,000 priests and 20 million Catholic married couples. Who is the Church being harder on?
And a burden that the Bible prohibits them from placing on priests. Would you not agree?
I reject your argument that Peter's mother-in-law proves he was married at the time he was selected. Other than that the Four Gospels contain nothing to support that any of the Apostles were married.
The cites from Paul have been explained to you as very likely to have been mistranslated.The word which you see as wife is actually "woman" in one case and "sister" in another. I am not going over it again.
If you wish to believe that one fairly clear direction on the bishops and three hazy and subject to other interpretation citations,supercede at least twenty examples(words or actions)showing otherwise,go ahead. The state this country is in today makes me think it doesn't much matter.
I believe the education system and the media have so animalized Americans that they are incapable of thinking or right reason let alone understanding revelation.Certainly,it is in the best interest of those wishing to perpetuate and extend this "animalizaation" of America to deny that anyone,including Jesus Christ Himself could live without sex. And of course it would be good to even erase the memory of a group who through the centuries tried to live like Christ in order to bring God's creatures back home to Him,Who made us all in His image.
Please eexcuse me for taking my bad humor out on you today. Last night I went to a musical called "Menopause the Musical". It started out with kind of a litany of the complaints and symptoms so many of us menopausal females have. The hot flashes,forgetfulness,loss of appeal,need to get to the bathroom post-haste,facelifts,depressions and on and on.The songs were all Golden oldie-types with new words and until a little after the middle,quite clever and enjoyable.
So I was sitting there,thinking that it wasn't worth the thirty-six dollars but it was light hearted and not bad. Besides that was what my friends wanted to do. All of the sudden I saw the tempo change in anticipation of the discovery that was to change the lives of the four characters. You may have guessed it,they got turned on by their own personal vibrator or toy. Please know there was nothing but suggestive words and dancing and gyratiions,nothing explicit. But the audience response was like a tent revival. People (old bags) screaming and laughing and swaying and I just was overwhelmed with the saddest feeling.Here I was,in the middle of about 500 mothers and grandmothers and 50 men,screeching and chortling over women and vibrators.Oh,lest I forget,they all turned into older but seductive,glamorous women.
Reflecting on that experience last night I came to some conclusions.If we of this age are going to convert the world to Christ, it will take something as powerful as an army of celibate,chaste priests,giving up everything to follow Christ,offering up their everything to convince the world that there is another Way that brings us to Truth and that leads to Life,everlasting.
Some of us do get tradition but understand that when tradition and scripture conflict, scripture wins out. Scripture is the thing which our beliefs must be measured against. Remember that another word for scripture is canon, and the definition of canon is a ruler or measuring rod, as in "a basis for judgment; a standard or criterion."
If you're so enthusiastic about traditions, then tell me why Jesus spent so much time debunking the traditions of the religious leaders of His day, such as:
"Jesus said to them in reply, 'You are misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.'" Matthew 22:29 (New American Bible)
He said to them in reply, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother shall die.' But you say, 'Whoever says to father or mother, "Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God," need not honor his father.' You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. Matthew 15:3 (New American Bible).
Paul commended the Bereans for taking what he wrote and comparing it -- not against their traditions -- but against scripture:
"These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so." Acts 17:11 (New American Bible).
The majority of the early Church fathers recognized that scripture was the supreme measuring rod to which our beliefs and traditions must be compared. To whit:
The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.
-- St. AthanasiusFor concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.
-- St. Cyril of Jerusalem...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.
-- St. Gregory of NyssaLet us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer to [our own] calculation; but in calculating upon [theological] facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things...
-- St. John ChrysostomThey are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases [persons], and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.
-- St. Basil the Great
There's your tradition for you.
Well, you know, that's three or four passages more than you provided me supporting your position that celibacy should be required of priests. I also asked you for the citation of such a Tradition and you couldn't provide it.The cites from Paul have been explained to you as very likely to have been mistranslated.The word which you see as wife is actually "woman" in one case and "sister" in another. I am not going over it again.As for the issue at hand, how much clearer do you get than this:
Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once ... 1 Timothy 3:2 (New American Bible)It's plain on the face of it that the scripture permits clergy to be married. There's not a whole lot of room for mistranslation or misinterpretation.Further, you do little but complain that those of us who quote scripture are somehow wrong for providing rational, Biblically-based arguments that go against your belief system. The problem is that your belief system doesn't stand up very well to Biblical scrutiny.
My quotations were all from (and often hyperlinked to) the New American Bible on the site hosted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Do you know better than the group of 50 scholars the bishops assembled to provide an accurate translation? You shouldn't be complaining about me, but the bishops.Further, the cite that you complain as "very likely to have been mistranslated" happens to agree with the passage in 1 Timothy that I quoted above and happens to agree with the passage referring to Peter's mother-in-law (note: not former mother-in-law).
If I've made you mad enough, then perhaps you'll be like the Bereans, whom Paul praised for searching the scriptures to see if what he wrote them was true. Maybe you'll think for yourself, too. That would be nice. Step out of the darkness of superstition and into the light of a Biblically-based relationship with God.
Dogma, si. Discipline, non.
Maybe you will someday have a neighbor lose a spouse and still invite his or her mother-in-law over for dinner. I doubt very much that s/he will introduce her to you as "my ex-mother-in-law".
But I would like to pursue this belief of yours that celibacy is a crushing burden on priests. I would concede that it becomes so in a society in which even Catholics regard it as an oddity. But for Catholics to have such a view is an historical oddity and indicates that they have bought the Freudian notion that sexual intercourse is such an imperative that to suppress it is wrong. This is a recent development, I must add. Forty years ago, the majority of Catholics treasured priestly celibacy and regarded as a witness that their own struggles for chastity in marriage had truly supernatural value. The abandonment by priests of their posts to get married was not looked upon as a poof of the superiority of marriage but of the impracticality of Jesus' admonition not to divorce. When during a battle, the officers flee, that is a signal for the troops to retreat. I will only say that Protestants beat the retreat long before Catholics did and the leaders of the Church are still trying to hold the line.
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.