New Vatican leader raises celibacy question

[OttoVonBismarck]

Or you just get someone who struggles constantly as they are prevented from fully living the life they want to live.

I think there are people who are perfectly happy not having a wife or a family. One of my dad's best friends who died a few years ago in his 80s had a series of close-encounters with marriage in his 20s and 30s (was engaged four times) but the entire time I knew him he had a series of several different long term relationships none with marriage as an intended goal. He died childless and alone but seemed fairly happy up til the end, he had a robust network of friends and lots of things he enjoyed doing.

Now he obviously was not celibate, and I don't personally know anyone who has practiced life long celibacy outside of Priests. But I'm going to wager there must be people who can be perfectly happy choosing to live life a certain way that means you must be celibate. For me personally, from my teens up through my early 30s I could not imagine celibacy but honestly at my age now if my wife were to die considering how alien the dating world would be to me, my natural difficulty getting along with people, and my much reduced overriding need to rut like an animal at the sight of a woman that was typical of my youth being gone I could see myself being celibate for the rest of my life. I'm wagering there are people that even during their youth don't have a super strong sex drive, or perhaps just are more able to suppress it and go on with other things.

[CountDeMoney]

I think there are people who are perfectly happy not having a wife or a family.

[garbon]

Or you just get someone who struggles constantly as they are prevented from fully living the life they want to live.

I think there are people who are perfectly happy not having a wife or a family.

Sure but do you think that accounts for even the majority of priests?

[Berkut]

I love how Otto will come into a thread and throw up a wall of text restating the last 20+ posts as if it's now true because he has now said it.

I really just restated Church doctrine. I don't know but I think I'm one of the few actual practicing Catholics on the forums here, so wasn't really sure the rest of you lot would know about this stuff or even know how to look things up in the official Catechism or Canon Law (which I did for my post, and which you'd have no reason to be familiar with if you were a non-Catholic.)

This stuff gets fairly complicated, and I wouldn't be shocked if my parish priest could read over it and find a few nits to pick with how I explained things, but I think I did a fairly encyclopedic style conveying of information on the current position of the church.

As for "as if it's now true because he has now said it", it's only true that what I said reflects official Catholic canon law and teachings. Other questions such as, did Jesus intend for there to be male only priests because he only selected male apostles, did Jesus even intend we have a formal priesthood, did Jesus exist at all, if he existed was he the son of god, does God exist at all or is it all superstition--those are questions of faith/theology, as an atheist I'd be surprised you would even think there is a "true" or "false" answer to those questions--an atheist would reject the whole premise.

I thought the religious justification for the core misogyny of your faith was rather interesting myself. I certainly was not aware of it.

[Berkut]

That is one of the strongest Canonical beliefs for the religion. Not to keep women out. That's a by-product, I think.

I don't buy that for a second, myself.

Keeping women out was going to happen because the canons of the church were formed at a time when "keeping women out" was simply going to be the norm regardless. Sure, they will go ahead and justify it, and do so in a manner that leaves no wiggle room later, but it's not like it HAD to be that way.

Whoever wrote the gospels could have had a female apostle or two, for example. Hell, there are claims that Jesus was pretty tight with that Mary Magdalene chick.

No, it is not a fundamental precept of the Christian faith that women cannot be priests. It could, in theory, go either way. In practical terms, there was no chance of that happening because society at the time was profoundly sexist. Women had little or no rights in general until literally hundreds of years after those theological foundations were laid and set into stone.

But there is no fundamental theological basis for it, even once one does understand the theological justification for it after the fact.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I thought the religious justification for the core misogyny of your faith was rather interesting myself. I certainly was not aware of it.

I assumed you had come in here to talk about dealing with long periods of celibacy, not to make errors of theology.

The argument you've laid out is basically that there is no core part of Christian belief that would preclude women Priests. That's a theological argument, as such it can't be mixed in with atheist claims like "the guy who wrote the Gospels could have just thrown in a few female apostles." A theological approach does not start from the assumption the gospels are works of fiction the authors could have modified however they wish. Nor does it make sociocultural arguments about the norms of the time and all that.

I do believe that the Catholic Church, like all institutions of power, would have barred women from holding offices or having positions of importance as a matter of course, regardless of what scripture says. But the actual scriptures themselves do make it clear that Christ selected exclusively men to be his apostles, and those apostles selected exclusively men to be their highly regarded followers. The Apostolic succession, and the concept that Priests are continuing this tradition to the present day really precludes any strong theological counterargument. Is it your assertion the Church should draw nothing from the example set by Christ, in selecting twelve male apostles? It is known Jesus had both male and female followers, yet he chose exclusively males to be his Apostles. Was that just a matter of chance?

[Tamas]

FYI, this topic is still boring.

[garbon]

FYI, this topic is still boring.

You don't have to participate. So go get a life?

[CountDeMoney]

FYI, this topic is still boring.

You don't have to participate. So go get a life?

It's still too early in the season for Tamas to farm his dirt.

[Berkut]

I thought the religious justification for the core misogyny of your faith was rather interesting myself. I certainly was not aware of it.

I assumed you had come in here to talk about dealing with long periods of celibacy, not to make errors of theology.

The argument you've laid out is basically that there is no core part of Christian belief that would preclude women Priests. That's a theological argument, as such it can't be mixed in with atheist claims like "the guy who wrote the Gospels could have just thrown in a few female apostles." A theological approach does not start from the assumption the gospels are works of fiction the authors could have modified however they wish. Nor does it make sociocultural arguments about the norms of the time and all that.

I do believe that the Catholic Church, like all institutions of power, would have barred women from holding offices or having positions of importance as a matter of course, regardless of what scripture says. But the actual scriptures themselves do make it clear that Christ selected exclusively men to be his apostles, and those apostles selected exclusively men to be their highly regarded followers. The Apostolic succession, and the concept that Priests are continuing this tradition to the present day really precludes any strong theological counterargument. Is it your assertion the Church should draw nothing from the example set by Christ, in selecting twelve male apostles? It is known Jesus had both male and female followers, yet he chose exclusively males to be his Apostles. Was that just a matter of chance?

Who knows?

I am saying that if 400 years ago the Catholic Church said "Christ only chose male apostles, but that was clearly simply due to the exigencies of the time he existed in, and here are example A, B, and C where Christ made it clear that he valued women just as much as men, so it is certainly the case that women can be priests, even if Christ did not select any to be apostles" then right now you would be arguing how clearly the idea of women in the priesthood is a core tenet of the Catholic faith.

The bible is a big book with lots of stuff in it, and can and has been used to justify very different things by different groups for various reasons. And each group trots out their justification that when seen in isolation looks pretty theologically reasonable.

If this was such a fundmental Christian tenet, then why is that some Christian religions do in fact allow females in the clergy? Are they not looking to the example of Christ, do they not care what example he set? I suggest if you ask them, they would rather strongly disagree that the fact that Christ only had male apostles makes it clear that only men can be members of the priesthood.

I am not saying the Catholic theology can be changed by any means - this is a matter of Catholic core tenets at this point. I am simply saying that it did not HAVE to be that way, and in many cases in Christianity it is in fact not that way. It is the way it is because the Catholic Church made it a matter of core theology at a time when there was no way in hell it could have been any other way due to the sexist nature of society at that time.

[Berkut]

I thought the religious justification for the core misogyny of your faith was rather interesting myself. I certainly was not aware of it.

I assumed you had come in here to talk about dealing with long periods of celibacy, not to make errors of theology.

The argument you've laid out is basically that there is no core part of Christian belief that would preclude women Priests. That's a theological argument, as such it can't be mixed in with atheist claims like "the guy who wrote the Gospels could have just thrown in a few female apostles." A theological approach does not start from the assumption the gospels are works of fiction the authors could have modified however they wish.

The people who decided what books were the bible and what were not certainly could have made different decisions. That is not an atheistic argument, that is simply a note of history.

What books were selected I have no doubt were in fact informed by the relevant cultural norms at the time the selections were made.

The argument that you (and the Church) have laid out is that there IS a core part of the Christian faith that precludes female priests. That is fine, it isn't a terrible argument, and I can certainly understand it.

However....if it were such a slam dunk argument, then how is that other Christian faiths do in fact allow for the ordination of female priests? Are they not Christians?

Of course they are. There is nothing about the core of Christian belief that makes a male only priesthood a necessary condition. It is a conclusion drawn by men interpreting some "facts" from the bible. Their conclusion is certainly supportable, but it is not the only possible one.

Hell, I can come up with rather valid counter-theological arguments off the top of my head.

Christ had 12 apostles. These were clearly unique positions, and should not be used as a template for what can and cannot be in a priesthood of tens of thousands. The apostles were special, and not intended to be any kind of model for all priests at all times. I am quite certain I could go mine some quotes from Christ that could and have been used to support the ordination of women.

Nor does it make sociocultural arguments about the norms of the time and all that.

An argument that rejects the concept that the basis for a conclusion is strictly theological can certainly point out that the norms of the time make the given conclusion inevitable - ie, the claimed reason (theology) is not really the actual reason (societal norms of the time).

[Ed Anger]

FYI, this topic is still boring.

You don't have to participate. So go get a life?

It's still too early in the season for Tamas to farm his dirt.

[crazy canuck]

Whoever wrote the gospels could have had a female apostle or two, for example. Hell, there are claims that Jesus was pretty tight with that Mary Magdalene chick.

Actually its not so much a question of who wrote the books that made it into the New Testament but who selected which books would make it into the New Testament.  None of the gospels that prominently featured women made it in and Paul's writings did.  I am not saying that is the reason Paul was selected over other options.  I agree with you that the creation of the doctrine was significantly influenced by the time and place it was created.  Indeed your point is made all the stronger when one realizes that a very different narrative regarding women could have been created from the available source material when Church doctrine was being formed.

edit:  I see you made the same point when I was typing this

[crazy canuck]

And to add a little more support for Berkut's position, lets not overlook the fact that the texts of the books that did make it into the New testament were manipulated and even forged to meet the doctrinal needs of those creating the text.

http://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God-Why-Bibles-Authors/dp/0062012622

[merithyn]

I don't personally know anyone who has practiced life long celibacy

I do.

I have at few female friends who are in their 30s and still virgins. Not really by choice, but more because they're so painfully shy and have zero idea how to engage a guy in anything other than a professional manner.