Enforced Celibacy

[Simon_Templar]

I'm posting this here because I can't post in OBOB (and basicly got told to shut up when I made a few comments in a thread on this issue).


This is one thing I just don't get about the Roman Catholic church.

I've read, and I understand the justifications they give for it, but they simply don't work. The two frequently used refrences are to Jesus comments about being eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, and to Paul's comments which seem to prefer celibacy.

One of the many problems with this is that neither of these two refrences say anything about being a priest, or being ordained, they both merely point out that there are some people specially gifted to be celibate for the kingdom of God.
In fact, most of the direct statements in scripture regarding qualifications for priests and bishops have statements which include allowance at least (and some even try to argue necessity of) marriage.

In both the statements by Paul and Jesus it is specificly stated that this celibatacy is a special gifting from God. It is not something to be required of people. Moreover, there is nothing whatsoever in the bible which ever links this gifting of celibacy to ordination. It is, on the contrary, obvious in scripture that God calls non celibate men to the priesthood.

Those who hold up this example from Jesus in particular say that Jesus was the example of our high priest so all priests should follow his example and remain celibate. Yet Jesus himself chose men to be his Apostles, who were married. Infact, (if your a Catholic) He chose THE chief Apostle and head of the entire church, Peter, A MARRIED MAN.

So why does the see of St. Peter, see fit, or feel the need, to lay upon people a burden and a standard that NOT EVEN PETER HIMSELF could meet??

Hello.... Pharisee much?

Isn't that kinda the point of the Jerusalem Council... The 1st council of the church... that the Church is not supposed to lay burdens on people greater than what God himself has put on them?

God laid out the qualifications for ordination... why does Rome seem to think they need to improve upon what God set forth, especially by forbidding something God specificly allowed?

[Tomoz]

Fantastic post, I agree

[Aymn27]

Simon! My brother from another mother!!
I see you got your lashes too - for confounding the Roman thought machine...(they're beginning to look a little cultish in their responses)..

I also pointed out that they accept the validity of the ministry of married EO and OC priests - even those who entered the priesthood AFTER they were married - but in the same breathe will say that it is impossible for God to call a Latin Rite man to the same vocation. In the words of PV - is outrage!

It is also interesting how they will argue from the SILENCE of Scripture that the apostles no longer slept with/live with their wives...

Yet again - Romish doctrine contrary to the words of Scripture.

[Simon_Templar]

There are two other things in this whole topic that continually amaze me.

#1 The catholic church is suffering a shortage of priests in virtually all of the industrialized world. Yet there are many who still gripe about empowering lay ministers to serve the people. You disallow people who God has called because they don't meet your standards.. then you would rather that whole parishes go without ministry, than see their beloved tradition changed. Whats more, the beloved traditions in question are not original traditions of the unified church, but are for the most part later, medieval develoments.

#2 when talking to traditional catholics you hear nothing but "the church said" "the council said" "the Fathers said" "The Pope said"... until it comes to Vatican II which many of the traditionalists don't like... then all of the sudden "the church" "the council" "the Pope" etc are not quite so authoritative, and are suddenly open to question and even outright doubt.

[ContraMundum]

The Papist irony is this:

If a layman falls in love with a woman, he can follow the commands of God and marry. He has not sinned, but can receive God's blessings through matrimony.

If a cleric falls in love with a woman, he cannot follow the commands of God to marry, but if he does, he has "sinned".

This of course means Rome is the only Christian communion in the world where no one can have all the sacraments. Priests can't marry, married men can't receive Holy Orders.

It gets even weirder. Married men have blessings from God through the sacrament of marriage, Clerics, who need blessings too, can not. Married men can follow the scriptures to marry those they love, clerics can not. Oddly, the protestant church can be scriptural ("do not forbid marriage"), when the "Catholic" Church is not.

[ContraMundum]

#2 when talking to traditional catholics you hear nothing but "the church said" "the council said" "the Fathers said" "The Pope said"... until it comes to Vatican II which many of the traditionalists don't like... then all of the sudden "the church" "the council" "the Pope" etc are not quite so authoritative, and are suddenly open to question and even outright doubt.

Yep- you got it- they're the biggest hypocrites on the planet. I think that kind of "traditionalism" is a psychological disorder, frankly. I'm not joking. I also think the pentecostals may be on to something when they say some people have a "religious spirit".

[Naomi4Christ]

It is certainly a great loss to the RCC not to have the ministry of a vicar's wife.

[ContraMundum]

It is certainly a great loss to the RCC not to have the ministry of a vicar's wife.

It's also a great loss to RC clerics!

[Tomoz]

This is an interesting article about one of the results of catholic clergy still being unable to marry:

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-00523

Very interesting stuff. Can't say the Vatican would be pleased.

[karen freeinchristman]

It's also a great loss to RC clerics!

True, and very sad.

[TomUK]

I agree that some are called to celibacy - Priests or otherwise - but certainly not all. I just find it ironic that it is practically impossible for one to receive all 7 sacraments. You're either ordained or you're married (or neither of course!)

[Aymn27]

I agree that some are called to celibacy - Priests or otherwise - but certainly not all. I just find it ironic that it is practically impossible for one to receive all 7 sacraments. You're either ordained or you're married (or neither of course!)
Good point Tom - I've thought that as well - it would sorta be like saying - "hey, you got married so you can't receive the eucharist" - receiving one sacrament shoud not bar you from another should it?

[Aymn27]

Yep- you got it- they're the biggest hypocrites on the planet. I think that kind of "traditionalism" is a psychological disorder, frankly. I'm not joking. I also think the pentecostals may be on to something when they say some people have a "religious spirit".
Totally agree..I know the sort..not sure if it is a spirit, but would definitely agree on the psychological disorder..

[gitlance]

The Catholic Church does indeed have married clergy -- both in East and West. However, there is an order to the sacraments. One must be married before being ordained. Once ordained, one cannot receive the sacrament of Matrimony. For example, if a married priest's wife died, he could not remarry. This is true with the Eastern Orthodox as well. Further, the Church feels that in the West, one must be called by God to be both priest AND celibate in order to receive Orders, though this is not dogma and could be changed if needed. Perhaps from that point of view it can be seen how it harmonizes with Paul.

Many would say that the priest shortage of today, which is largely localized to America, has nothing to do with marriage, but has to do with a sex-saturated society attempting to force its "morals" upon all whom it can reach. Celibacy is seen as undesirable, and so it makes some people not want to pursue it. Either way, it seems that the call to marriage or the call to celibacy is just as good and genuine. Priests are called to stand in persona Christi, and unless Dan Brown is right, our Lord Christ is not married.

This is not intended to constitute debate, but rather to serve as a simple explanation of the Church's stance.

[Aymn27]

I believe we all know Rome's reasoning - the point of this thread is that we don't agree with it and find it rather odd. I don't thnk anyone here has a problem with celibacy - forced celibacy is another thing.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Some pretty hateful and angry things have been said in this thread so far. I think we should all take a moment to reflect and calm down. Some of us may not agree with enforced priestly celibacy within the Latin Rite, but we shouldn't attack anyone because of that.

I don't think everyone is called to all seven sacraments, if that was true married couples should also be ordained clergy. There are many married Catholic priests of the Latin and Eastern Rites, and there are many Latin Rite Catholics who would like to see mandatory celibacy revoked.

(You know, in some ways this is like the unleavened and leavened bread debate -- both are valid matter for the Sacrament, but we disagree on which should be used.)

[ContraMundum]

The Catholic Church does indeed have married clergy -- both in East and West. However, there is an order to the sacraments......blah blah blah.....

....This is not intended to constitute debate, but rather to serve as a simple explanation of the Church's stance.

Like we didn't already know?

One thing I think is overdone on the forum- people always having to tell us "what the Roman Church actually teaches", when not asked.

[ContraMundum]

Some pretty hateful and angry things have been said in this thread so far. I think we should all take a moment to reflect and calm down. Some of us may not agree with enforced priestly celibacy within the Latin Rite, but we shouldn't attack anyone because of that.

Why on earth are we to remain silent on Anglican opinions on an Anglican forum?

We're allowed to be as critical on the position of Rome all we like, because it's our forum. No one is attacking any one person here. My goodness.

I don't think everyone is called to all seven sacraments, if that was true married couples should also be ordained clergy. There are many married Catholic priests of the Latin and Eastern Rites, and there are many Latin Rite Catholics who would like to see mandatory celibacy revoked.

(You know, in some ways this is like the unleavened and leavened bread debate -- both are valid matter for the Sacrament, but we disagree on which should be used.)

How come you are allowed to debate here when you don't have an Anglican icon but Simon gets booted from the woeful OBOB for stating his opinion?

What's good for the geese....

[Mysterium_Fidei]

How come you are allowed to debate here when you don't have an Anglican icon but Simon gets booted from the woeful OBOB for stating his opinion?
What's good for the geese....

Well, I'm guessing that is because I'm an Anglican. Who knows? But I'm pretty sure I didn't engage in debate, anyway. I was just trying to encourage charity.

[Colabomb]

Why on earth are we to remain silent on Anglican opinions on an Anglican forum?

We're allowed to be as critical on the position of Rome all we like, because it's our forum. No one is attacking any one person here. My goodness.



How come you are allowed to debate here when you don't have an Anglican icon but Simon gets booted from the woeful OBOB for stating his opinion?

What's good for the geese....
I don't have an icon...

[DeoJuvante]

I find the posts here hilarious.

What do you care what we do?

Do I care if Anglicans decide to allow clergy to marry or women priests? Of course not, otherwise I'd be an Anglican.

Do I care if pentecostals lay on the floor and bark? No.

Do I care if Muslims pray 5 times a day? Of course not.

I could care less. What is it with so many nonCatholic Christians constantly critiquing Rome?

I've never been obsessed with another's religion or practices as much as nonCatholics are obsessed with ours.

Firstly, please don't call us non-Catholic in our own forum. You have your beliefs on catholicity and we have ours; but please respect our beliefs here.

In response to your question, maybe we just like Roman Catholics and we don't like to see them suffer because of stupid rules. ;)

[ContraMundum]

I find the posts here hilarious.

Well, the level of hostility over at OBOB needs a counter-balance somewhere on CF.

What do you care what we do?

Believe it or not, some Anglicans do care. I have no idea why.

I could care less. What is it with so many nonCatholic Christians constantly critiquing Rome?

...oh, you haven't worked that out yet? :eek:

It's simple. Rome claims far more authority than she actually has. Through a complex and long history of self-engrandiosement and theological hoop-jumping coupled with Orwellian double-speak in the Middle Ages, it has successfully, to some degree at least, re-written its own violent and unsanctified history, fooling millions into thinking that she is "the only one true" Church, when in fact she is merely a quasi-liberal mish-mash of nominal Christians with a peppering of faithful believers mixed in there somewhere.

So, others critique her because even a little boy had enough guts to call out the naked Emporer in his new "clothes". If God had not have allowed her secular power to be stripped from her those others would have been put to the stake, but God is good and freedom of speech in Christianity is here to stay.
Ironically, even Roman Catholics enjoy that gift today.

I've never been obsessed with another's religion or practices as much as nonCatholics are obsessed with ours.

Of course you have. Just admit it.

[Tetzel]

I don't have an icon...

Yeah, but "Traditional Anglican" right under your name kind of identifies your affiliation
[/b]

[gtsecc]

I find the posts here hilarious.

What do you care what we do?
What we do affects you.
What you do affects us.
That is the theology of the church, and a reality.

Do I care if Muslims pray 5 times a day? Of course not.
Well, they are praying the Daily Office.
Are RCC laiety praying it with that regularity?

[ContraMundum]

Well, I'm guessing that is because I'm an Anglican. Who knows? But I'm pretty sure I didn't engage in debate, anyway. I was just trying to encourage charity.

OK.

I was just making an illustration. Simon gets booted for stating his opinion, yet you and others are free to make your opinions known here, even though the strict letter of the law says you can't.

Odd.

[Tetzel]

It's simple. Rome claims far more authority than she actually has. Through a complex and long history of self-engrandiosement and theological hoop-jumping coupled with Orwellian double-speak in the Middle Ages, it has successfully, to some degree at least, re-written its own violent and unsanctified history, fooling millions into thinking that she is "the only one true" Church, when in fact she is merely a quasi-liberal mish-mash of nominal Christians with a peppering of faithful believers mixed in there somewhere.


Hey leave the liberals out of this, they're not so bad.

[ContraMundum]

Why don't we start by liberating the Buddhists?

When your last "Papa" put the Bhudda on the altar at Assisi I think he was trying to do just that.

What? You don't agree with that action? Wow....perhaps you should protest.

[ContraMundum]

You don't recognise the 'emperor' so who cares?

Funny you should mention that.

"If memory serves me right" (to quote Iron Chef's chairman Kaga) it wasn't until an Emporer recognised the bishop of Rome that the Bishop of Rome became a surrogate Emporer himself.

To the stake? You mean like St. Thomas More or how about the peace loving Cromwell? Let's not play the who is just...I think Anglican justice has been felt around the globe.

The difference: Cromwell was not a bishop. ;) Just a worldly ruler.

Shall we debate the decrees of the Popes promoting the execution of dissenters and compare that with Archbishops of Canterbury?

I didn't think so....

'Nuff said!

[erin74]

Closed for Staff Review

[higgs2]

Sorry, didn't see the thread was closed.

[higgs2]

Sorry, didn't realize this thread was closed. :doh: