http://news.yahoo.com/cardinal-married-catholic-priests-possibility-172115510.html
QuoteRoman Catholic priests should be allowed to marry and have children, Britain's most senior Catholic cleric said Friday.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien, who heads the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, said the requirement for priestly celibacy is "not of divine origin" and could be reconsidered.
He told BBC Scotland that "the celibacy of the clergy, whether priests should marry — Jesus didn't say that."
He said that "many priests have found it very difficult to cope with celibacy," and while he had never considered marriage himself, "I would be very happy if others had the opportunity of considering whether or not they could or should get married."
O'Brien, 74, will form part of the conclave of cardinals that chooses the next pontiff, following the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.
Benedict announced earlier this month that he will step down Feb. 28 — the first pope to resign in almost 600 years.
The cardinal said that the next pope would be free to consider changing church policy on issues, such as celibacy for priests, that were not "basic dogmatic beliefs."
He said that "we know at the present time in some branches of the church — in some branches of the Catholic church — priests can get married, so that is obviously not of divine origin and it could get discussed again."
In recent years a number of traditionalist Anglicans opposed to the ordination of women and other changes have joined the Roman Catholic Church. The pope granted special dispensation for married Anglican clergy to stay married and be ordained in the Catholic Church.
O'Brien also said it was time to think seriously about having a pope from outside Europe.
He said he would be "open to a pope from anywhere if I thought it was the right man, whether it was Europe or Asia or Africa or wherever."
Bah.
We don't need more pedophiles.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2013, 02:47:54 PM
Bah.
I'm not sure they have much of a choice here. They're quickly running out of priests ...
Quote from: Iormlund on February 22, 2013, 03:32:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2013, 02:47:54 PM
Bah.
I'm not sure they have much of a choice here. They're quickly running out of priests ...
Even an aggressive breeding program won't pay off until 20-30 years from now.
Quote from: The Brain on February 22, 2013, 03:38:40 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on February 22, 2013, 03:32:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2013, 02:47:54 PM
Bah.
I'm not sure they have much of a choice here. They're quickly running out of priests ...
Even an aggressive breeding program won't pay off until 20-30 years from now.
:lol:
Quote from: The Brain on February 22, 2013, 03:38:40 PM
Even an aggressive breeding program won't pay off until 20-30 years from now.
Not true. Think about all those choir boys.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 22, 2013, 03:32:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2013, 02:47:54 PM
Bah.
I'm not sure they have much of a choice here. They're quickly running out of priests ...
That's OK, they're running out of parishoners.
Sure, but you need the same amount of priests to run parishes with full attendance and those at half or less.
There already are married Catholic priests. The church my wife's family goes to has 'em.
I thought only previously-married ex-Anglicans were kosher.
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2013, 04:48:01 PM
There already are married Catholic priests. The church my wife's family goes to has 'em.
Yep. It's an accepted practice with the Easterns.
Eastern Rite. Should be extended. The reasons for celibacy for the priesthood is long past. Anybody who really want that can join one of the monastic orders.
If only they let priests marry. Then Fahdiz and Meri would go back to be Catholics. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 05:02:12 PM
If only they let priests marry. Then Fahdiz and Meri would go back to be Catholics. :(
Nah. I'd still have that nitpicky issue about not believing in a god, much less the very particular Christian god.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 05:02:12 PM
If only they let priests marry. Then Fahdiz and Meri would go back to be Catholics. :(
Why? Is that suddenly going to allow women the opportunity to be priests? Or alter my opinion on abortion and birth control? Will it stop them from calling the LGBT community unnatural and evil? Or change the fact that I don't believe in transmutation, the need for confession, or that there's only one "true" faith?
Yeah, I'll be keeping my distance.
Unless I'm mistaken, priests could marry in western Europe in the middle ages too. In Ireland and Scotland it was normal, at least. If the pope can resign, might as well bring this back too.
I was under the impression Priests were made celibate to prevent them from leaving their progeny vast amounts of property.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 22, 2013, 05:24:45 PM
I was under the impression Priests were made celibate to prevent them from leaving their progeny vast amounts of property.
That's my understanding, too.
Well it is no longer an issue so the celibacyu thing is now no longer relevant. If the godless Protestants can pull it off so too can the Mother Church.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 05:02:12 PM
If only they let priests marry. Then Fahdiz and Meri would go back to be Catholics. :(
Or if they let priests marry gays, Martinus would return to the church.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 22, 2013, 04:50:31 PM
I thought only previously-married ex-Anglicans were kosher.
Nope. Ukranian Catholics have married priests.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 22, 2013, 05:32:20 PM
Well it is no longer an issue so the celibacyu thing is now no longer relevant. If the godless Protestants can pull it off so too can the Mother Church.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPFuuLVoCrs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPFuuLVoCrs)
Quote from: merithyn on February 22, 2013, 05:10:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 05:02:12 PM
If only they let priests marry. Then Fahdiz and Meri would go back to be Catholics. :(
Why? Is that suddenly going to allow women the opportunity to be priests? Or alter my opinion on abortion and birth control? Will it stop them from calling the LGBT community unnatural and evil? Or change the fact that I don't believe in transmutation, the need for confession, or that there's only one "true" faith?
Yeah, I'll be keeping my distance.
Oh, so your opinion really aren't relevant here are they?
Oh and before Fahdiz and Meri start having kittens I was using them as an example to make a larger point. Why should the Catholic church cater the opinions of people who aren't interested in joining it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 22, 2013, 05:33:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 05:02:12 PM
If only they let priests marry. Then Fahdiz and Meri would go back to be Catholics. :(
Or if they let priests marry gays, Martinus would return to the church.
No, they'll still have the prohibition against sorcery.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:09:33 PM
Oh, so your opinion really aren't relevant here are they?
If you aren't Catholic you aren't allowed to have opinions on the Catholic Church?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:14:03 PM
Why should the Catholic church cater the opinions of people who aren't interested in joining it.
I'm pretty sure the Cardinal in question isn't talking about catering to people who will not become Catholics or go back to the Catholic Church. He appears to be interested in a practical solution to what is in effect a staffing issue.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 06:15:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:14:03 PM
Why should the Catholic church cater the opinions of people who aren't interested in joining it.
I'm pretty sure the Cardinal in question isn't talking about catering to people who will not become Catholics or go back to the Catholic Church. He appears to be interested in a practical solution to what is in effect a staffing issue.
Maybe he don't think he is...
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 06:14:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:09:33 PM
Oh, so your opinion really aren't relevant here are they?
If you aren't Catholic you aren't allowed to have opinions on the Catholic Church?
No but endorement of certain reforms seem a bit hollow.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:17:31 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 06:15:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:14:03 PM
Why should the Catholic church cater the opinions of people who aren't interested in joining it.
I'm pretty sure the Cardinal in question isn't talking about catering to people who will not become Catholics or go back to the Catholic Church. He appears to be interested in a practical solution to what is in effect a staffing issue.
Maybe he don't think he is...
I'm not sure how to parse that.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:18:19 PM
No but endorement of certain reforms seem a bit hollow.
a) Who's endorsing reforms? I noted that married priests are, in fact, permitted in certain Rites of the Church, so it cannot possibly be forbidden by God.
b) Seeing a venerable institution adapt to reality is something which benefits us all :)
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 06:15:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:14:03 PM
Why should the Catholic church cater the opinions of people who aren't interested in joining it.
I'm pretty sure the Cardinal in question isn't talking about catering to people who will not become Catholics or go back to the Catholic Church. He appears to be interested in a practical solution to what is in effect a staffing issue.
Yup. Also, the staffing issue is a self-imposed burden that has no real religious justification.
For you, the Catholic church becoming atheist would be "adapting to reality".
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2013, 06:23:04 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 06:15:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:14:03 PM
Why should the Catholic church cater the opinions of people who aren't interested in joining it.
I'm pretty sure the Cardinal in question isn't talking about catering to people who will not become Catholics or go back to the Catholic Church. He appears to be interested in a practical solution to what is in effect a staffing issue.
Yup. Also, the staffing issue is a self-imposed burden that has no real religious justification.
:yeahright:
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:23:23 PM
For you, the Catholic church becoming atheist would be "adapting to reality".
:huh:
1) There exist married Catholic priests who are in full communion with the Church.
2) The Roman Rite currently does not allow married Catholic priests.
3) The solution to the staffing problem in the Catholic Church, because of 1), need not exclude the acceptance of married Roman priests.
That's what I'm talking about, Raz. Not atheism or anything else.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 06:27:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:23:23 PM
For you, the Catholic church becoming atheist would be "adapting to reality".
:huh:
1) There exist married Catholic priests who are in full communion with the Church.
2) The Roman Rite currently does not allow married Catholic priests.
3) The solution to the staffing problem in the Catholic Church, because of 1), need not exclude the acceptance of married Roman priests.
That's what I'm talking about, Raz. Not atheism or anything else.
I was pointing out
your reality is materialistic. Moving closer to your reality seems pointless for the church.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 06:28:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:26:32 PM
:yeahright:
How is he wrong? :blink:
How is he right? It's an absurd statement that there is no religious reason for why the Catholic church has celibate priests. You might not accept these reasons as good enough, but to say they don't exist is silly.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:26:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2013, 06:23:04 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 06:15:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:14:03 PM
Why should the Catholic church cater the opinions of people who aren't interested in joining it.
I'm pretty sure the Cardinal in question isn't talking about catering to people who will not become Catholics or go back to the Catholic Church. He appears to be interested in a practical solution to what is in effect a staffing issue.
Yup. Also, the staffing issue is a self-imposed burden that has no real religious justification.
:yeahright:
How can it have religious justification where there are in fact married Catholic priests, without there being any religious problem with that?
I can see the Church having an issue if Catholic priests wish to add statues of Ganesh to Churches, because that's, well, a trifle too ecumenical. :D
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2013, 06:39:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:26:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2013, 06:23:04 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 06:15:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:14:03 PM
Why should the Catholic church cater the opinions of people who aren't interested in joining it.
I'm pretty sure the Cardinal in question isn't talking about catering to people who will not become Catholics or go back to the Catholic Church. He appears to be interested in a practical solution to what is in effect a staffing issue.
Yup. Also, the staffing issue is a self-imposed burden that has no real religious justification.
:yeahright:
How can it have religious justification where there are in fact married Catholic priests, without there being any religious problem with that?
I can see the Church having an issue if Catholic priests wish to add statues of Ganesh to Churches, because that's, well, a trifle too ecumenical. :D
Not married priests, priests getting married :contract:
So basically, Raz jumped the shark before we were 10 posts in. Got it. Now I remember why I don't respond to him.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:37:11 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 06:28:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:26:32 PM
:yeahright:
How is he wrong? :blink:
How is he right? It's an absurd statement that there is no religious reason for why the Catholic church has celibate priests. You might not accept these reasons as good enough, but to say they don't exist is silly.
It's not me that doesn't think there is any religious reason against having married priests, it's the Church. How can the same church say group A can't have married priests, it is absolutely forbidden because of pressing religious reasons ... but group B, why they can have married priests no problemo? It's the same religion in both cases, right?
Quote from: merithyn on February 22, 2013, 06:41:30 PM
So basically, Raz jumped the shark before we were 10 posts in. Got it. Now I remember why I don't respond to him.
Oh, are you going to go full Grumbler now?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:43:10 PM
Quote from: merithyn on February 22, 2013, 06:41:30 PM
So basically, Raz jumped the shark before we were 10 posts in. Got it. Now I remember why I don't respond to him.
Oh, are you going to go full Grumbler now?
That might be the only counter to full blown Raztard.
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2013, 06:42:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:37:11 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 06:28:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:26:32 PM
:yeahright:
How is he wrong? :blink:
How is he right? It's an absurd statement that there is no religious reason for why the Catholic church has celibate priests. You might not accept these reasons as good enough, but to say they don't exist is silly.
It's not me that doesn't think there is any religious reason against having married priests, it's the Church. How can the same church say group A can't have married priests, it is absolutely forbidden because of pressing religious reasons ... but group B, why they can have married priests no problemo? It's the same religion in both cases, right?
Again, not having married priests, but priests getting married.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:31:56 PM
I was pointing out your reality is materialistic. Moving closer to your reality seems pointless for the church.
I am still not sure what this has to do with married priests.
Quote from: sbr on February 22, 2013, 06:44:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:43:10 PM
Quote from: merithyn on February 22, 2013, 06:41:30 PM
So basically, Raz jumped the shark before we were 10 posts in. Got it. Now I remember why I don't respond to him.
Oh, are you going to go full Grumbler now?
That might be the only counter to full blown Raztard.
The cure is fare worse then the disease. My point still stand, why should the church take the advice of people who have no interest in joining it?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:44:40 PM
Again, not having married priests, but priests getting married.
Who is talking about priests getting married? Besides you, I mean.
EDIT: My bad, it appears the Cardinal suggested it.
Still, it seems you could solve the staffing problem in the Catholic Church by doing what the Easterns already do - permitting married men to be ordained to the priesthood.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 06:45:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:31:56 PM
I was pointing out your reality is materialistic. Moving closer to your reality seems pointless for the church.
I am still not sure what this has to do with married priests.
You said move closer to reality, but this is reality as
you perceive it. In the reality as you perceptive it the whole thing is a waste of time since there is no God. Moving closer to your version of reality who ultimately result in the end of the church. So why should they take into consideration your reality.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:44:40 PM
Again, not having married priests, but priests getting married.
Seems a trivial distinction. All imposing a prohibiton on priests getting married does is force those interested in the priesthood to put off ordination until they are married. Seems to me that once you accept priests *being* married, it would make sense to accept priests *getting* married. I mean really, why not?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:50:57 PM
You said move closer to reality, but this is reality as you perceive it. In the reality as you perceptive it the whole thing is a waste of time since there is no God. Moving closer to your version of reality who ultimately result in the end of the church. So why should they take into consideration your reality.
The reality is a priest shortage. I thought that's what we were all talking about.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 06:48:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:44:40 PM
Again, not having married priests, but priests getting married.
Who is talking about priests getting married? Besides you, I mean.
EDIT: My bad, it appears the Cardinal suggested it.
Still, it seems you could solve the staffing problem in the Catholic Church by doing what the Easterns already do - permitting married men to be ordained to the priesthood.
Would it?
http://old.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19990729orthodox6.asp
It would seem that the the Eastern Orthodox church has priest problems as well.
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2013, 06:52:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:44:40 PM
Again, not having married priests, but priests getting married.
Seems a trivial distinction. All imposing a prohibiton on priests getting married does is force those interested in the priesthood to put off ordination until they are married. Seems to me that once you accept priests *being* married, it would make sense to accept priests *getting* married. I mean really, why not?
I don't know, the actions of becoming something and the state of being are rather distinct. One is active and one is passive.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:54:04 PM
Would it?
http://old.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19990729orthodox6.asp
It would seem that the the Eastern Orthodox church has priest problems as well.
I bet you'd see an influx of new Roman priests if the restrictions were lifted. The Easterns don't have those restrictions, so their reasons for shortage can't possibly include that one.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 06:56:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 06:54:04 PM
Would it?
http://old.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19990729orthodox6.asp
It would seem that the the Eastern Orthodox church has priest problems as well.
I bet you'd see an influx of new Roman priests if the restrictions were lifted. The Easterns don't have those restrictions, so their reasons for shortage can't possibly include that one.
Or perhaps the reason for shortages in both are caused by some other problem that doesn't involve marriage. That would seem to be a more logical answer.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 07:00:09 PM
Or perhaps the reason for shortages in both are caused by some other problem that doesn't involve marriage. That would seem to be a more logical answer.
Oh, okay - what's the problem then?
The more logical answer would be that there are a variety of different reasons and they shouldn't be discounted completely because they don't explain the shortage entirely.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 07:02:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 07:00:09 PM
Or perhaps the reason for shortages in both are caused by some other problem that doesn't involve marriage. That would seem to be a more logical answer.
Oh, okay - what's the problem then?
Don't know, but if two similar organizations are having the same problem then the a policy enacted by one but not the other doesn't seem like it's the cause.
In other news, Kittens were had by all.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 07:04:43 PM
Don't know, but if two similar organizations are having the same problem then the a policy enacted by one but not the other doesn't seem like it's the cause.
In other news, Kittens were had by all.
Dude, you're the one who started flipping out about my atheism and whether or not I should be allowed to have an opinion :D
As for the other point, the Roman and Orthodox churches are different in a lot of ways. I wouldn't be so quick to discount the possibility.
Meri seemed unhappy. I just find it tiresome to get this sort of pontificating about the Catholic church by people who normally don't care about the Catholic church. It's like getting a lecture about heterosexual marriage from Marty. Or getting a lecture about the US government from Marty. Or getting a lecture about concepts of law from Marty.
I do care about the Catholic Church. I care about the good things it brings to society and I care about the harm it brings to society. It's not like it operates in a vacuum; it's an historical, international, cultural institution.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 07:35:19 PM
I do care about the Catholic Church. I care about the good things it brings to society and I care about the harm it brings to society. It's not like it operates in a vacuum; it's an historical, international, cultural institution.
Heh it's a good point; I have no choice but to care about the church to an extent, as my in-laws are members of it.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 07:35:19 PM
I do care about the Catholic Church. I care about the good things it brings to society and I care about the harm it brings to society. It's not like it operates in a vacuum; it's an historical, international, cultural institution.
Alright, fine. I misjudge you. <_<
Too much kneeling in papist church for me. I like fiery sermons and dunking in water.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 22, 2013, 07:55:18 PM
Too much kneeling in papist church for me. I like fiery sermons and dunking in water.
And giant Robo-Jesus.
Quote from: PDH on February 22, 2013, 07:56:18 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 22, 2013, 07:55:18 PM
Too much kneeling in papist church for me. I like fiery sermons and dunking in water.
And giant Robo-Jesus.
He lords over I-75.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F0%2F05%2FLux_Mundi%252C_the_sculpture_of_Jesus_at_Solid_Rock_Church.jpg&hash=f207d44045e3df88ec3cb5c5a92ac368396fabbf)
Is Jesus wearing a fat guy muumuu?
He's Mexican.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 22, 2013, 08:24:45 PM
He's Mexican.
In America, we do not have this phenomenon.
To help Raz out, because he seems like a nice enough fellow that is getting dogpiled, and not because I agree with him at all (I don't):
Priests getting married vs. priests living in a state of marriage is quite different...if priests are allowed to get married, that implies they are going to be out pursuing women for marriage and dating. For a variety of reasons (mostly regarding some catholic attitudes/teachings regarding sex), that could impair a priests ability to lead a community along the lines that the Vatican wants.
Regarding Malthus's statement that there isn't a religious reason for not having married priests, I think this is clearly wrong. The vatican seems to be exhibiting a strong preference for unmarried priests, but not to the point that it is a deal breaker in regions where its authority has been more tenuous. The church has a religious reason for wanting priests unmarried, and also a religious reason for wanting to have authority of the maximum number of churches. A compromise between the two competing objectives doesn't mean there isn't a religious justification for either.
Regarding the idea that there isn't a justification because of the historical precedent for marriage, I'd point out that (at least in the Catholic tradition) the leaders of the early church were unmarried (jesus, peter, etc) and there was a very early emphasis on celibacy as being a more holy condition. Deviations from that can be explained by both the preceding paragraph and that the vatican didn't have functional control of the church in many countries in medieval times (among others).
Quote from: PDH on February 22, 2013, 09:00:48 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2013, 08:51:10 PM
-snip-
What does this have to do with Robo-Jesus?
Notice the absence of a Robo-Woman. Robo-Jesus is clearly not married and is against priests getting married.
How is Raz getting dogpiled? He went after fahdiz and Meri directly and they responded. :P
Malthus popped into it too, but his comments have been more observational than argumentative.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 07:04:43 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 07:02:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2013, 07:00:09 PM
Or perhaps the reason for shortages in both are caused by some other problem that doesn't involve marriage. That would seem to be a more logical answer.
Oh, okay - what's the problem then?
Don't know, but if two similar organizations are having the same problem then the a policy enacted by one but not the other doesn't seem like it's the cause.
In other news, Kittens were had by all.
AFAIK, Protestant churches don't have a problem with a shortage of ministers. Of course, with some Protestant denominations, calling them an "organization" would be a stretch.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2013, 11:03:03 PM
Notice the absence of a Robo-Woman. Robo-Jesus is clearly not married and is against priests getting married.
Point conceded.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2013, 08:51:10 PM
To help Raz out, because he seems like a nice enough fellow that is getting dogpiled, and not because I agree with him at all (I don't):
Priests getting married vs. priests living in a state of marriage is quite different...if priests are allowed to get married, that implies they are going to be out pursuing women for marriage and dating. For a variety of reasons (mostly regarding some catholic attitudes/teachings regarding sex), that could impair a priests ability to lead a community along the lines that the Vatican wants.
Regarding Malthus's statement that there isn't a religious reason for not having married priests, I think this is clearly wrong. The vatican seems to be exhibiting a strong preference for unmarried priests, but not to the point that it is a deal breaker in regions where its authority has been more tenuous. The church has a religious reason for wanting priests unmarried, and also a religious reason for wanting to have authority of the maximum number of churches. A compromise between the two competing objectives doesn't mean there isn't a religious justification for either.
Regarding the idea that there isn't a justification because of the historical precedent for marriage, I'd point out that (at least in the Catholic tradition) the leaders of the early church were unmarried (jesus, peter, etc) and there was a very early emphasis on celibacy as being a more holy condition. Deviations from that can be explained by both the preceding paragraph and that the vatican didn't have functional control of the church in many countries in medieval times (among others).
There simply isn't a religious reason, based on Christian doctrine, for unmarried priests. Or at least, I've never heard any.
You are mistaking "traditional" for "religious". There are many, many traditional reasons for unmarried priests. There are even some practical ones.
Take the notion that it is unseemly for priests to go out dating - presumably, the Vatican would not want OKCupid entries, "Hott Priest loves you long time" or whatnot. ;) That's hardly a "religious" reason.
By "religious" I mean something based on actual teachings or doctrine. A vague notion that hott, sexy priests are distasteful, or that priests devoting themselves to their families will distract them from their work, or that celebacy is more holy than not ... none of these are "religious reasons".
Take the celebacy = holy thing. This clearly comes from the notion that self-denial is an aspect of sainthood. But priests are not expected to commit to self-denial in all areas. Clearly it would be nice if all priests were saints, but it is not expected of them, it is not a religious requirement. Priests do not have to wear hair shirts and mortify their flesh - though that was also (alongside celebacy) an aspect of saintdom in medieval times.
What appears to be the case is that a
practical measure - priests don't marry because it would cause trouble and lead them to build up family dynasties - has lingered long, long after it has ceased to be practical. If that's the case, there is nothing *religiously* stopping the church from changing it. It isn't like (say) Orthodox Jews suddenly deciding to eat pork because, you know, it's tasty.
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 09:56:57 AM
There simply isn't a religious reason, based on Christian doctrine, for unmarried priests. Or at least, I've never heard any.
You are mistaking "traditional" for "religious". There are many, many traditional reasons for unmarried priests. There are even some practical ones.
Take the notion that it is unseemly for priests to go out dating - presumably, the Vatican would not want OKCupid entries, "Hott Priest loves you long time" or whatnot. ;) That's hardly a "religious" reason.
By "religious" I mean something based on actual teachings or doctrine. A vague notion that hott, sexy priests are distasteful, or that priests devoting themselves to their families will distract them from their work, or that celebacy is more holy than not ... none of these are "religious reasons".
Take the celebacy = holy thing. This clearly comes from the notion that self-denial is an aspect of sainthood. But priests are not expected to commit to self-denial in all areas. Clearly it would be nice if all priests were saints, but it is not expected of them, it is not a religious requirement. Priests do not have to wear hair shirts and mortify their flesh - though that was also (alongside celebacy) an aspect of saintdom in medieval times.
What appears to be the case is that a practical measure - priests don't marry because it would cause trouble and lead them to build up family dynasties - has lingered long, long after it has ceased to be practical. If that's the case, there is nothing *religiously* stopping the church from changing it. It isn't like (say) Orthodox Jews suddenly deciding to eat pork because, you know, it's tasty.
Catholic.com discusses this question, and I think demonstrates that there are religious reasons:
Quote
Full Question
Why can't a priest ever marry?
Answer
In the Eastern rites of the Church it is common for married men to be ordained to the priesthood. Further, in the Latin rite there are a few married men, converted ministers from other faiths, who are ordained to the Catholic priesthood. This, however, is not common. Finally, in neither the Latin rite nor the Eastern rites do priests (or deacons) marry after they have been ordained, except in extraordinary circumstances.
The reasons Latin rite priests can't marry is both theological and canonical.
Theologically, it may be pointed out that priests serve in the place of Christ and therefore, their ministry specially configures them to Christ. As is clear from Scripture, Christ was not married (except in a mystical sense, to the Church). By remaining celibate and devoting themselves to the service of the Church, priests more closely model, configure themselves to, and consecrate themselves to Christ.
As Christ himself makes clear, none of us will be married in heaven (Mt 22:23–30). By remaining unmarried in this life, priests are more closely configured to the final, eschatological state that will be all of ours.
Paul makes it very clear that remaining single allows one's attention to be undivided in serving the Lord (1 Cor 7:32–35). He recommends celibacy to all (1 Cor 7:7) but especially to ministers, who as soldiers of Christ he urges to abstain from "civilian affairs" (2 Tm 2:3–4).
Canonically, priests cannot marry for a number of reasons. First, priests who belong to religious orders take vows of celibacy. Second, while diocesan priests do not take vows, they do make a promise of celibacy.
Third, the Church has established impediments that block the validity of marriages attempted by those who have been ordained. Canon 1087 states: "Persons who are in holy orders invalidly attempt marriage."
This impediment remains as long as the priest has not been dispensed from it, even if he were to attempt a civil marriage, even if he left the Church and joined a non-Catholic sect, and even if he apostatized from the Christian faith altogether. He cannot be validly married after ordination unless he receives a dispensation from the Holy See (CIC 1078 §2, 1).
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-cant-a-priest-ever-marry
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2013, 07:44:34 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 07:35:19 PM
I do care about the Catholic Church. I care about the good things it brings to society and I care about the harm it brings to society. It's not like it operates in a vacuum; it's an historical, international, cultural institution.
Heh it's a good point; I have no choice but to care about the church to an extent, as my in-laws are members of it.
My in-laws and my brother's wife are Catholic & I have no opinion on internal Catholic matters. None of my own business.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 23, 2013, 11:09:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 09:56:57 AM
There simply isn't a religious reason, based on Christian doctrine, for unmarried priests. Or at least, I've never heard any.
You are mistaking "traditional" for "religious". There are many, many traditional reasons for unmarried priests. There are even some practical ones.
Take the notion that it is unseemly for priests to go out dating - presumably, the Vatican would not want OKCupid entries, "Hott Priest loves you long time" or whatnot. ;) That's hardly a "religious" reason.
By "religious" I mean something based on actual teachings or doctrine. A vague notion that hott, sexy priests are distasteful, or that priests devoting themselves to their families will distract them from their work, or that celebacy is more holy than not ... none of these are "religious reasons".
Take the celebacy = holy thing. This clearly comes from the notion that self-denial is an aspect of sainthood. But priests are not expected to commit to self-denial in all areas. Clearly it would be nice if all priests were saints, but it is not expected of them, it is not a religious requirement. Priests do not have to wear hair shirts and mortify their flesh - though that was also (alongside celebacy) an aspect of saintdom in medieval times.
What appears to be the case is that a practical measure - priests don't marry because it would cause trouble and lead them to build up family dynasties - has lingered long, long after it has ceased to be practical. If that's the case, there is nothing *religiously* stopping the church from changing it. It isn't like (say) Orthodox Jews suddenly deciding to eat pork because, you know, it's tasty.
Catholic.com discusses this question, and I think demonstrates that there are religious reasons:
Quote
Full Question
Why can't a priest ever marry?
Answer
In the Eastern rites of the Church it is common for married men to be ordained to the priesthood. Further, in the Latin rite there are a few married men, converted ministers from other faiths, who are ordained to the Catholic priesthood. This, however, is not common. Finally, in neither the Latin rite nor the Eastern rites do priests (or deacons) marry after they have been ordained, except in extraordinary circumstances.
The reasons Latin rite priests can't marry is both theological and canonical.
Theologically, it may be pointed out that priests serve in the place of Christ and therefore, their ministry specially configures them to Christ. As is clear from Scripture, Christ was not married (except in a mystical sense, to the Church). By remaining celibate and devoting themselves to the service of the Church, priests more closely model, configure themselves to, and consecrate themselves to Christ.
As Christ himself makes clear, none of us will be married in heaven (Mt 22:23–30). By remaining unmarried in this life, priests are more closely configured to the final, eschatological state that will be all of ours.
Paul makes it very clear that remaining single allows one's attention to be undivided in serving the Lord (1 Cor 7:32–35). He recommends celibacy to all (1 Cor 7:7) but especially to ministers, who as soldiers of Christ he urges to abstain from "civilian affairs" (2 Tm 2:3–4).
Canonically, priests cannot marry for a number of reasons. First, priests who belong to religious orders take vows of celibacy. Second, while diocesan priests do not take vows, they do make a promise of celibacy.
Third, the Church has established impediments that block the validity of marriages attempted by those who have been ordained. Canon 1087 states: "Persons who are in holy orders invalidly attempt marriage."
This impediment remains as long as the priest has not been dispensed from it, even if he were to attempt a civil marriage, even if he left the Church and joined a non-Catholic sect, and even if he apostatized from the Christian faith altogether. He cannot be validly married after ordination unless he receives a dispensation from the Holy See (CIC 1078 §2, 1).
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-cant-a-priest-ever-marry
First, we can dispose of the "canonical" reasons. They are all self-referential: priests cannot marry because they make promises of celebacy. No reason is given why such promises are necessary.
Second, the alleged religious reasons are, with the exception of Paul's commentary, simply post facto rationalizations of a policy already decided on. Certainly, Jesus was not married. He was also a Jewish carpenter before he was messiah. Must all priests therefore be Jewish carpenters before being priests?
Third, why does what happens in heaven make any difference to what a priest should be on earth? Why should priests and not others try to live like they are already in heaven? Again, this is a thin attempt to post facto cobbel together a rationalization where none exists.
The sole and only source is Paul, who famously said it is "better to marry than to burn" - pointing out that, while celebacy was best *for everyone*, it is better that people marry than that they sin by having sex outside of marriage.
Indeed, the whole point of his commentary was that marriage was a good idea to avoid exactly the problems that are troubling the Catholic Church these days - namely, a lot of sex scandals. Here's what Paul actually has to say:
Quote7 Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
[Emphasis added]
Not a word about how this advice goes for non-priests only. According to Paul, the better view is that priests (indeed everyone) should stay unmarried
if they can control their passions. If they can't, get married.
Paul does not, in point of fact, state priests should not be married. The cites given promote celebacy as a good idea for
everyone (again, with the caveat that it is "better to marry than to burn") . The Timothy reference is particularly egregious. What it actually says is this:
QuoteAnd what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
Bear your share of hardship along with me like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.
To satisfy the one who recruited him, a soldier does not become entangled in the business affairs of life
"Business affairs" does not, without a big stretch, mean "married". The analogy is to a
soldier. Last I heard, soldiers were not celebate and got married. The point is to keep one's attention on the job - and having a partner isn't a disqualification from doing that in the analogy used: being a good soldier.
In summary, there is not a word of truth to the notion that there is a religious reason for priests not being married. These alleged "reasons" could be cobbled together to demonstrate a "reason" for almost anything. They are clearly put together in a thin attempt at justification after the policy was already implemented for other reasons.
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2013, 12:37:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2013, 07:44:34 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2013, 07:35:19 PM
I do care about the Catholic Church. I care about the good things it brings to society and I care about the harm it brings to society. It's not like it operates in a vacuum; it's an historical, international, cultural institution.
Heh it's a good point; I have no choice but to care about the church to an extent, as my in-laws are members of it.
My in-laws and my brother's wife are Catholic & I have no opinion on internal Catholic matters. None of my own business.
My kid gets taken to Catholic religious ceremonies. Everything affecting my kid is my business.
Yeah, so there are religious reasons, you just don't accept them as valid, which makes sense since you don't accept the Catholic religion as valid.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 22, 2013, 10:52:27 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 22, 2013, 08:24:45 PM
He's Mexican.
No sombrero. :thumbsdown:
Or a drive-thru menu and speaker.
"Welcome to Christburger. Can I take your order?"
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 01:10:51 PM
My kid gets taken to Catholic religious ceremonies. Everything affecting my kid is my business.
Fair enough. I don't think mine has ever been inside a Catholic church.
What does Dan Brown have to say on the matter. :tinfoil:
You're all heretics, apostates and dirty, dirty protestants anyway.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2013, 02:56:12 PM
You're all heretics, apostates and dirty, dirty protestants anyway.
Looks like someone is too timid to scream JEW!
Quote from: chipwich on February 23, 2013, 03:14:28 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2013, 02:56:12 PM
You're all heretics, apostates and dirty, dirty protestants anyway.
Looks like someone is too timid to scream JEW!
They know who they are.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2013, 02:56:12 PM
You're all heretics, apostates and dirty, dirty protestants anyway.
It's quite a club!
Don't worry. The Home Office in Rome's got you on the list.
You think Republicans have a problem with Chuck Hagel leaving the fold? That's nothing compared to the jacket on you, pal.
I know, I know. I'll wave from below when I see you flapping about on your innocent little wings :)
My angel wings'll have Hellifires on each pylon.
And Jericho trumpets. Just for effect.
CD's gonna be in for a shock when it turns out rooting for Notre Dame's not enough to get into heaven.
That's merely a liturgical responsibility.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2013, 01:44:08 PM
Yeah, so there are religious reasons, you just don't accept them as valid, which makes sense since you don't accept the Catholic religion as valid.
No. I don't accept Orthodox Jewish prohibitions against eating non-Kosher foods, because I don't believe in the Jewish God (any more than I believe in the Catholic version). However, I do recognize that they have a genuine religious prohibition against eating pork-it says so right in the Bible.
This case isn't the same. There is nothing
in the scriptures that the authorities themselves cite that actually says what they want them to say - that is, that priests are prohibited from marrying. In fact, the scriptures they cite actually strongly imply the exact
opposite - Paul, for example, extolls the virtues of celebacy for everyone, but expressly states that, if you can't be celebate, you *should* marry.
You can't, for example, claim to have a genuine religious requirement to kill people by quoting the commandment "thou shalt not kill" and by carefully explaining how this actually means you really
should kill people.
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 08:05:41 PM
You can't, for example, claim to have a genuine religious requirement to kill people by quoting the commandment "thou shalt not kill" and by carefully explaining how this actually means you really should kill people.
Didn't some Christian dube do that very thing in relation to the notion of a just war ? :unsure:
Quote from: mongers on February 23, 2013, 08:29:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 08:05:41 PM
You can't, for example, claim to have a genuine religious requirement to kill people by quoting the commandment "thou shalt not kill" and by carefully explaining how this actually means you really should kill people.
Didn't some Christian dube do that very thing in relation to the notion of a just war ? :unsure:
Sure. Another example is Christians who murder abortion doctors. ;) "Pro-life" ... to the point of murder.
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 08:05:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2013, 01:44:08 PM
Yeah, so there are religious reasons, you just don't accept them as valid, which makes sense since you don't accept the Catholic religion as valid.
No. I don't accept Orthodox Jewish prohibitions against eating non-Kosher foods, because I don't believe in the Jewish God (any more than I believe in the Catholic version). However, I do recognize that they have a genuine religious prohibition against eating pork-it says so right in the Bible.
This case isn't the same. There is nothing in the scriptures that the authorities themselves cite that actually says what they want them to say - that is, that priests are prohibited from marrying. In fact, the scriptures they cite actually strongly imply the exact opposite - Paul, for example, extolls the virtues of celebacy for everyone, but expressly states that, if you can't be celebate, you *should* marry.
You can't, for example, claim to have a genuine religious requirement to kill people by quoting the commandment "thou shalt not kill" and by carefully explaining how this actually means you really should kill people.
You are taking the Paul statement for the laity not for the clergy. It is assumed that the clergy is intended to be more "Christ-like", then the common laity. You dismissed this for some odd reason, something about how they weren't all Jewish messiahs.
Quote from: mongers on February 23, 2013, 08:29:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 08:05:41 PM
You can't, for example, claim to have a genuine religious requirement to kill people by quoting the commandment "thou shalt not kill" and by carefully explaining how this actually means you really should kill people.
Didn't some Christian dube do that very thing in relation to the notion of a just war ? :unsure:
Well sorta. St. Augustine came up with the idea of a "just war". The idea that killing people is bad but allowed in times of war is not exactly confined to Catholicism.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 23, 2013, 02:56:12 PM
You're all heretics, apostates and dirty, dirty protestants anyway.
:punk: :punk: :punk:
QuoteMale priests accuse anti-gay Cardinal Keith O'Brien of inappropriate acts and call on him to resign
Britain's most senior Catholic leader, notorious for his anti-gay views, has been reported to the Vatican over historical allegations of inappropriate behaviour involving several male priests dating back 30 years.
The Observer reports three priests and one former priest made the complaint against Cardinal Keith O'Brien, leader of the Scottish Catholic Church.
The four, from the diocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh, have complained to nuncio Antonio Mennini, the Vatican's ambassador to Britain, and demanded Cardinal O'Brien's immediate resignation.
A statement from the Scottish Catholic Church said Cardinal O'Brien contested the claims and was taking legal advice.
It is understood that the first allegation against the cardinal dates back to 1980.
The complainant, who is now married, was then a 20-year-old seminarian at St Andrew's College, Drygrange, Scotland, where Cardinal O'Brien was his "spiritual director".
Inappropriate conduct is alleged to have taken place with three other priests.
One of the complainants, it is understood, alleges that the cardinal developed an inappropriate relationship with him, resulting in a need for long-term psychological counselling.
The four submitted statements containing their claims to the nuncio's office the week before Pope Benedict's resignation on 11 February.
They fear that, if Cardinal O'Brien travels to the forthcoming papal conclave to elect a new pope, the Catholic Church will not fully address their complaints.
"It tends to cover up and protect the system at all costs," said one of the complainants to the Observer. "The church is beautiful, but it has a dark side and that has to do with accountability. If the system is to be improved, maybe it needs to be dismantled a bit."
Cardinal O'Brien is the only man in Britain with a say in who succeeds Pope Benedict XVI after he stands down on 28 February.
It is a stunning turn of events for the cardinal.
On Friday, in an interview with BBC Scotland, Cardinal O'Brien said that male priests within the Catholic Church should be able to marry female partners.
He said: "I would be very happy if others had the opportunity of considering whether or not they could or should get married.
"It is a free world and I realise that many priests have found it very difficult to cope with celibacy as they lived out their priesthood and felt the need of a companion, of a woman, to whom they could get married and raise a family of their own."
Last November, Cardinal O'Brien was named 'Bigot of the Year' by a gay rights charity due to his staunch opposition to marriage equality.
In 2012, he stated that same-sex relationships were "harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing" and compared equal marriage to slavery and child abuse.
He is due to retire next month.
Meanwhile on Saturday, the Vatican refused to confirm or deny claims of a network of gay prelates operating at its heart, some of whom allegedly were being blackmailed.
Italian daily newspaper La Repubblica published an article last Thursday claiming that Pope Benedict XVI's decision to resign was in part finalised by a Vatican report showing that the Holy See was affected by outside influences, including a "gay lobby".
Why am I not surprised.
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2013, 01:57:51 AM
Why am I not surprised.
Cause you used your Ouija board to predict the future?
Same sex all the time is boring. Mix it up FFS.
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 08:52:19 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 23, 2013, 08:29:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 08:05:41 PM
You can't, for example, claim to have a genuine religious requirement to kill people by quoting the commandment "thou shalt not kill" and by carefully explaining how this actually means you really should kill people.
Didn't some Christian dube do that very thing in relation to the notion of a just war ? :unsure:
Sure. Another example is Christians who murder abortion doctors. ;) "Pro-life" ... to the point of murder.
You know, the abortion-doctor murdering Christian line is used so often, I suddenly got curious how many people in the US were actually killed in anti-abortion violence. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States)), it's been a grand total of 8 people, 4 of whom were doctors, and only one of all 8 people was killed since the 1990's. :mellow:
Granted, there have been more cases of vandalism and assaults, but the actual numbers don't really seem to match the frequency with which this example/argument is advanced.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on February 24, 2013, 06:56:48 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 08:52:19 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 23, 2013, 08:29:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 08:05:41 PM
You can't, for example, claim to have a genuine religious requirement to kill people by quoting the commandment "thou shalt not kill" and by carefully explaining how this actually means you really should kill people.
Didn't some Christian dube do that very thing in relation to the notion of a just war ? :unsure:
Sure. Another example is Christians who murder abortion doctors. ;) "Pro-life" ... to the point of murder.
You know, the abortion-doctor murdering Christian line is used so often, I suddenly got curious how many people in the US were actually killed in anti-abortion violence. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States)), it's been a grand total of 8 people, 4 of whom were doctors, and only one of all 8 people was killed since the 1990's. :mellow:
Granted, there have been more cases of vandalism and assaults, but the actual numbers don't really seem to match the frequency with which this example/argument is advanced.
From your link
Quotethere have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion provider
That seems fairly bad. Also there are 41 bombings in the US and Canada and 91 attempted bombings. How many more crimes would be required to satisfy you?
Sounds like a week in Detroit.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 23, 2013, 11:09:58 AM
Catholic.com discusses this question, and I think demonstrates that there are religious reasons:
There's theological reasons, but it's a discipline of the Roman Rite - that could quite easily be reformed. It's not a doctrine or a dogma of the Catholic Church which is how you guys are treating it.
QuoteYeah, so there are religious reasons, you just don't accept them as valid, which makes sense since you don't accept the Catholic religion as valid.
It's to model the life of a priest on Christ so they can more fully love the Church (the bride of Christ). But it's not an issue of religious doctrine. It's a tradition of the Roman Rite but that's it, as John Paul II put it it's 'not of the essence of the priesthood'.
O'Brien is hardly notorious for his anti-gay views outside of the Observer. He's pretty moderate in the context of the Church (even of the Church in Scotland).
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2013, 07:19:35 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on February 24, 2013, 06:56:48 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 08:52:19 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 23, 2013, 08:29:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 08:05:41 PM
You can't, for example, claim to have a genuine religious requirement to kill people by quoting the commandment "thou shalt not kill" and by carefully explaining how this actually means you really should kill people.
Didn't some Christian dube do that very thing in relation to the notion of a just war ? :unsure:
Sure. Another example is Christians who murder abortion doctors. ;) "Pro-life" ... to the point of murder.
You know, the abortion-doctor murdering Christian line is used so often, I suddenly got curious how many people in the US were actually killed in anti-abortion violence. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States)), it's been a grand total of 8 people, 4 of whom were doctors, and only one of all 8 people was killed since the 1990's. :mellow:
Granted, there have been more cases of vandalism and assaults, but the actual numbers don't really seem to match the frequency with which this example/argument is advanced.
From your link Quotethere have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion provider
That seems fairly bad. Also there are 41 bombings in the US and Canada and 91 attempted bombings. How many more crimes would be required to satisfy you?
Way to miss the point.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2013, 12:45:48 AM
You are taking the Paul statement for the laity not for the clergy. It is assumed that the clergy is intended to be more "Christ-like", then the common laity. You dismissed this for some odd reason, something about how they weren't all Jewish messiahs.
Paul says nothing about the clergy. Presumably, the clergy didn't even exist in its present form when Paul was writing. So how can Paul's statement be the religious basis for having unmarried clergy?
On its face, Paul's statement would apply to both laity and clergy.
Also, if you want to "imitate Christ" in such matters totally external to his ministry like his marital status, why not in other ways? Make priests get circumcised. Christ was. :P
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on February 24, 2013, 06:56:48 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 08:52:19 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 23, 2013, 08:29:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 08:05:41 PM
You can't, for example, claim to have a genuine religious requirement to kill people by quoting the commandment "thou shalt not kill" and by carefully explaining how this actually means you really should kill people.
Didn't some Christian dube do that very thing in relation to the notion of a just war ? :unsure:
Sure. Another example is Christians who murder abortion doctors. ;) "Pro-life" ... to the point of murder.
You know, the abortion-doctor murdering Christian line is used so often, I suddenly got curious how many people in the US were actually killed in anti-abortion violence. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States)), it's been a grand total of 8 people, 4 of whom were doctors, and only one of all 8 people was killed since the 1990's. :mellow:
Granted, there have been more cases of vandalism and assaults, but the actual numbers don't really seem to match the frequency with which this example/argument is advanced.
Huh? My point does not depend on the frequecy with which such murders occurs. :huh: I'm not claiming this is some flaw inherent in Christianity, as opposed to any other doctrine.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on February 24, 2013, 06:56:48 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 08:52:19 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 23, 2013, 08:29:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 08:05:41 PM
You can't, for example, claim to have a genuine religious requirement to kill people by quoting the commandment "thou shalt not kill" and by carefully explaining how this actually means you really should kill people.
Didn't some Christian dube do that very thing in relation to the notion of a just war ? :unsure:
Sure. Another example is Christians who murder abortion doctors. ;) "Pro-life" ... to the point of murder.
You know, the abortion-doctor murdering Christian line is used so often, I suddenly got curious how many people in the US were actually killed in anti-abortion violence. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States)), it's been a grand total of 8 people, 4 of whom were doctors, and only one of all 8 people was killed since the 1990's. :mellow:
Granted, there have been more cases of vandalism and assaults, but the actual numbers don't really seem to match the frequency with which this example/argument is advanced.
Yeah, it only needs to happen once for Languishites to relentlessly drive it into the ground.
Quote from: Malthus on February 24, 2013, 11:00:47 AM
Paul says nothing about the clergy. Presumably, the clergy didn't even exist in its present form when Paul was writing. So how can Paul's statement be the religious basis for having unmarried clergy?
Benedict's theology on it has been about Matthew and the Old Testament, not Paul. There's various arguments for it from the Bible. What is key of course is that it isn't an essential Catholic belief, it isn't an essential part of the priesthood and it's not an unchanging doctrine.
It's like the liturgy. Of course it has symbolic religious meanings and theological reasonings for them, but it is one of those aspects of the Church which is subject to reform.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 11:21:39 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 24, 2013, 11:00:47 AM
Paul says nothing about the clergy. Presumably, the clergy didn't even exist in its present form when Paul was writing. So how can Paul's statement be the religious basis for having unmarried clergy?
Benedict's theology on it has been about Matthew and the Old Testament, not Paul. There's various arguments for it from the Bible. What is key of course is that it isn't an essential Catholic belief, it isn't an essential part of the priesthood and it's not an unchanging doctrine.
It's like the liturgy. Of course it has symbolic religious meanings and theological reasonings for them, but it is one of those aspects of the Church which is subject to reform.
I'm citing Paul because that's the cite claimed by the Catholic source upthread to justify it.
I'd be amazed if there was any reasonable support for it in the OT - the drafters of the OT never had any use for male celebacy, never as far as I know even considered it.
That Catholic source is rather more literal-minded than the Vatican. The interpretation of the OT isn't looking for examples or clear directives but like analysing poetry. The bit he's cited a few times is God divvying up the world for the tribes and the Levites are left the tabernacle and the offerings, 'God himself' is their inheritance.
Benedict:
QuoteThe true foundation of the priest's life, the ground of his existence, the ground of his life, is God himself. The Church in this Old Testament interpretation of the priestly life – an interpretation that also emerges repeatedly in Psalm 119 [118] – has rightly seen in the following of the Apostles, in communion with Jesus himself, as the explanation of what the priestly mission means. The priest can and must also say today, with the Levite: 'Dominus pars hereditatis meae et calicis mei'. God himself is my portion of land, the external and internal foundation of my existence. This theocentricity of the priestly existence is truly necessary in our entirely function –oriented world in which everything is based on calculable and ascertainable performance. The priest must truly know God from within and thus bring him to men and women: this is the prime service that contemporary humanity needs. If this centrality of God in a priest's life is lost, little by little the zeal in his actions is lost. In an excess of external things the centre that gives meaning to all things and leads them back to unity is missing. There, the foundation of life, the "earth" upon which all this can stand and prosper, is missing.
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2013, 11:08:01 AM
Yeah, it only needs to happen once for Languishites to relentlessly drive it into the ground.
Save it, Operation Rescue.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 11:57:54 AM
That Catholic source is rather more literal-minded than the Vatican. The interpretation of the OT isn't looking for examples or clear directives but like analysing poetry. The bit he's cited a few times is God divvying up the world for the tribes and the Levites are left the tabernacle and the offerings, 'God himself' is their inheritance.
Benedict:
QuoteThe true foundation of the priest's life, the ground of his existence, the ground of his life, is God himself. The Church in this Old Testament interpretation of the priestly life – an interpretation that also emerges repeatedly in Psalm 119 [118] – has rightly seen in the following of the Apostles, in communion with Jesus himself, as the explanation of what the priestly mission means. The priest can and must also say today, with the Levite: 'Dominus pars hereditatis meae et calicis mei'. God himself is my portion of land, the external and internal foundation of my existence. This theocentricity of the priestly existence is truly necessary in our entirely function –oriented world in which everything is based on calculable and ascertainable performance. The priest must truly know God from within and thus bring him to men and women: this is the prime service that contemporary humanity needs. If this centrality of God in a priest's life is lost, little by little the zeal in his actions is lost. In an excess of external things the centre that gives meaning to all things and leads them back to unity is missing. There, the foundation of life, the "earth" upon which all this can stand and prosper, is missing.
How does this lead to the conclusion priests can't be married? Levites certainly were married, for one.
Quote from: Malthus on February 24, 2013, 01:17:17 PM
How does this lead to the conclusion priests can't be married? Levites certainly were married, for one.
It doesn't. This is Benedict's theology of celibacy - though he's been open on the subject before - which is about allowing the priest to focus more on love of God. I think that JP for example had a different perspective. The tradition is supported by being supported by the Church. It's not theologically essential to the priesthood and there's no scriptural rule prescribing it. As I say it's not doctrine.
His view is that priests (and bishops) are men of God (Paul to Timothy) their purpose is to bring the Kingdom of God to the men and women the world. Like the Levites theirs is not the world. So when entering the priestly state like the Levites they say 'the Lord is my chosen portion and my cup, you hold my lot'. So, as he puts it, celibacy is another part of remaining theocentric, like the line in Matthew 'there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him accept it who can'. By celibacy the priest is able (like Christ) to focus their love on God and thus more fully bring the Kingdom of God to those they serve. Again as Benedict puts it:
'The true foundation of celibacy can be contained in the phrase: 'Dominus pars' – You are my land. It can only be theocentric. It cannot mean being deprived of love, but must mean letting oneself be consumed by passion for God and subsequently, thanks to a more intimate way of being with him, to serve men and women, too.'
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 01:34:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 24, 2013, 01:17:17 PM
How does this lead to the conclusion priests can't be married? Levites certainly were married, for one.
It doesn't. This is Benedict's theology of celibacy - though he's been open on the subject before - which is about allowing the priest to focus more on love of God. I think that JP for example had a different perspective. The tradition is supported by being supported by the Church. It's not theologically essential to the priesthood and there's no scriptural rule prescribing it. As I say it's not doctrine.
His view is that priests (and bishops) are men of God (Paul to Timothy) their purpose is to bring the Kingdom of God to the men and women the world. Like the Levites theirs is not the world. So when entering the priestly state like the Levites they say 'the Lord is my chosen portion and my cup, you hold my lot'. So, as he puts it, celibacy is another part of remaining theocentric, like the line in Matthew 'there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him accept it who can'. By celibacy the priest is able (like Christ) to focus their love on God and thus more fully bring the Kingdom of God to those they serve. Again as Benedict puts it:
'The true foundation of celibacy can be contained in the phrase: 'Dominus pars' – You are my land. It can only be theocentric. It cannot mean being deprived of love, but must mean letting oneself be consumed by passion for God and subsequently, thanks to a more intimate way of being with him, to serve men and women, too.'
It would certainly not solve Catholicism's staffing problems if they insisted on priests making themselves eunuchs, like the ancint priests of Cyble. :lol:
The actual scriptures all seem to be saying, do this if you can, but don't attempt it if you can't. That is far more sensible than laying down a prohibition, which leads to the exact problem Paul identified - Priests who can't really hack celebacy, leading to sex scandals.
The Church's position would be that if you can't don't become a priest. It's not for you, you haven't really been called. Or you've been called to another position, like a deacon.
I don't think it's celibacy that leads to sex scandals.
There is an obvious link between celibacy and sex scandals, Sheilbh.
Celibacy among clergy means that it creates a caste of men who are single, but not only they are not seen as somewhat suspicious because of it, but they are seen as respected and holy. This means that this caste will naturally attract people who have issues with their sexuality - and since I am willing to give them benefit of doubt, I'd say more of them do it because they have an erroneous view they can pray their sinful sexuality away, rather than see it as an excellent cover.
The thing is that it doesn't work for obvious reasons and on top of that the church puts these men in situations in which their sexuality is tested on a daily basis (for gays, this is being locked away with other men; for pedophiles it's by giving them easy access to children who view them as authority figures - in any other job, a single guy would be checked and cross-checked a hundred of times before being allowed to work closely with children).
And even for heterosexuals, denial breeds pathology (not to mention, denying healthy sexual expression - be it heterosexual or homosexual - is just bad for one's mental hygiene).
So yes, sex scandals are a direct result of celibacy.
Not to mention, the nature of catholic priesthood is that by the time these guys realise they can't just pray their sexual attraction away, they are locked in a life time job that one cannot quit without losing pretty much everything (as they are rarely trained to work in another job, their entire livelihood depends on the church, and on top of that, by becoming defrocked, they are subject to contempt from their former brethren).
So there is little wonder that by the time these men get to episcopal positions, they are already disillusioned, cynical and fucking other men (if we are lucky) or little children.
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2013, 03:49:35 PM
So yes, sex scandals are a direct result of celibacy.
Sex scandals don't impact the priesthood at any greater percentage than in any other profession.
Quotein any other job, a single guy would be checked and cross-checked a hundred of times before being allowed to work closely with children).
No, they wouldn't.
Seems this cardinal had too many points of interest.
I'll get my coat. :blush:
Quote from: Malthus on February 24, 2013, 11:02:55 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on February 24, 2013, 06:56:48 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 08:52:19 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 23, 2013, 08:29:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 08:05:41 PM
You can't, for example, claim to have a genuine religious requirement to kill people by quoting the commandment "thou shalt not kill" and by carefully explaining how this actually means you really should kill people.
Didn't some Christian dube do that very thing in relation to the notion of a just war ? :unsure:
Sure. Another example is Christians who murder abortion doctors. ;) "Pro-life" ... to the point of murder.
You know, the abortion-doctor murdering Christian line is used so often, I suddenly got curious how many people in the US were actually killed in anti-abortion violence. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States)), it's been a grand total of 8 people, 4 of whom were doctors, and only one of all 8 people was killed since the 1990's. :mellow:
Granted, there have been more cases of vandalism and assaults, but the actual numbers don't really seem to match the frequency with which this example/argument is advanced.
Huh? My point does not depend on the frequecy with which such murders occurs. :huh: I'm not claiming this is some flaw inherent in Christianity, as opposed to any other doctrine.
Oh, I know it wasn't your point and it was more of a throwaway comment.... I was mostly just curious about the frequency with which that example really occurs, s'all.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 03:43:17 PM
The Church's position would be that if you can't don't become a priest. It's not for you, you haven't really been called. Or you've been called to another position, like a deacon.
I don't think it's celibacy that leads to sex scandals.
Paul was actually wiser on this point than the Church.
It isn't that celebacy "causes" sex scandals - the "cause" is each individual choice to indulge. Rather, it is that celebacy makes such scandals more likely, as celebacy is (as Paul recognized) too difficult for many people to hack. Making a bright-line rule that one cannot have sex and keep one's position breeds trouble very predictably. Even if you assume that celebacy is in itself a good thing (obviously, I don't, but that is neither here nor there), it would be better to adopt Paul's dictum of "better to marry than to burn with passion", as opposed to the Church's position of "no sex at all". Much worse is that the Church has apparently extended all sorts of "understanding" (that is, covering-up for) priests who cannot keep to their vows - wouldn't it be better to allow priests the normal human solice of marriage if they want it?
Absolutely, I agree. As I say it's a discipline, not a doctrine so it can be changed. But I think the Catholic link provided earlier was rather literal in looking for direction from the Bible which just isn't the way most theology works, it's allegorical, symbolic and poetic as much as anything. It's more literary criticism than legal analysis.
In my view it should and should even go further in allowing priests to marry rather than just allowing married priests.
Though I'd still have solemn vows - as for monks - that allowed for total celibacy.
I broadly agree with Damian Thompson, who's fiercely, conservatively Catholic, in the Telegraph:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100204046/the-next-pope-must-think-seriously-about-married-priests-because-the-celibacy-rule-isnt-working/
They might as well let them marry. Even if they start having kids, it's not like the Church matters enough to care if the bishoprics start getting passed down in the family.
Since the scandals tend to occur with young boys I don't see how marriage is going to solve this problem. Unless they can marry young boys.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2013, 12:25:57 AM
Since the scandals tend to occur with young boys I don't see how marriage is going to solve this problem. Unless they can marry young boys.
Then we'll be able to acertain that the problem isn't priests, but rather gays.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2013, 12:25:57 AM
Since the scandals tend to occur with young boys I don't see how marriage is going to solve this problem. Unless they can marry young boys.
Priests being able to get married means you get more applicants, which means they can weed out more potential offenders. Also, priests being parents themselves means a significant increase in hysteria and decrease in willingness to look the other way within the church.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 25, 2013, 12:39:37 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2013, 12:25:57 AM
Since the scandals tend to occur with young boys I don't see how marriage is going to solve this problem. Unless they can marry young boys.
Priests being able to get married means you get more applicants, which means they can weed out more potential offenders. Also, priests being parents themselves means a significant increase in hysteria and decrease in willingness to look the other way within the church.
Except there isn't any reason to believe marriage will entice more people to the priesthood, nor are there ways to weed out potential offenders without them first offending.
Hey guys, Raz doesn't want married priests, ok?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2013, 06:04:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2013, 03:49:35 PM
So yes, sex scandals are a direct result of celibacy.
Sex scandals don't impact the priesthood at any greater percentage than in any other profession.
I hope you are being sarcastic.
Quote from: Malthus on February 24, 2013, 08:26:22 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2013, 03:43:17 PM
The Church's position would be that if you can't don't become a priest. It's not for you, you haven't really been called. Or you've been called to another position, like a deacon.
I don't think it's celibacy that leads to sex scandals.
Paul was actually wiser on this point than the Church.
It isn't that celebacy "causes" sex scandals - the "cause" is each individual choice to indulge. Rather, it is that celebacy makes such scandals more likely, as celebacy is (as Paul recognized) too difficult for many people to hack. Making a bright-line rule that one cannot have sex and keep one's position breeds trouble very predictably. Even if you assume that celebacy is in itself a good thing (obviously, I don't, but that is neither here nor there), it would be better to adopt Paul's dictum of "better to marry than to burn with passion", as opposed to the Church's position of "no sex at all". Much worse is that the Church has apparently extended all sorts of "understanding" (that is, covering-up for) priests who cannot keep to their vows - wouldn't it be better to allow priests the normal human solice of marriage if they want it?
This is another reason why the Catholic Church is in so much hot water over the pedophilia scandals - it's because from its perspective, all kinds of "vow breaking" - whether with a chick, a guy or a kid - has been so far perceived in pretty much the same light - i.e. a sin, but at the same time something that deserves compassion and understanding. Anyone who has more than two brain cells and is not a senile fool trapped in ancient ritual can see how much of a fucked up perspective this is.
Btw, Sheilbh, thanks for completely ignoring my points made earlier. ;)
And the poor Cardinal resigns. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 04:04:50 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2013, 06:04:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2013, 03:49:35 PM
So yes, sex scandals are a direct result of celibacy.
Sex scandals don't impact the priesthood at any greater percentage than in any other profession.
I hope you are being sarcastic.
No, I'm not. But you're being your usual frothy faggity self with the same old hang-ups, so pointing out statistics won't work.
It's not about statistics (although I wouldn't be surprised if the catholic church had more active pedophiles than other professions), it's about institutionalized systemic tradition of covering up criminal abuse, by an institution that pretends to be a moral guide for the masses.
I'm shocked I even have to spell it out for you. You are acting worse than derspiess defending the GOP.
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 04:04:50 AM
I hope you are being sarcastic.
No, he's entirely right.
QuoteBtw, Sheilbh, thanks for completely ignoring my points made earlier.
I think CdM answered them. They're based on a foundations of sand.
QuoteIt's not about statistics (although I wouldn't be surprised if the catholic church had more active pedophiles than other professions), it's about institutionalized systemic tradition of covering up criminal abuse, by an institution that pretends to be a moral guide for the masses.
But it is about statistics. If celibacy makes sex scandals more likely to happen then the fact that there's less sex scandals suggests a minimal link to celibacy. Unless celibacy also makes institutions cover things up?
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 07:08:25 AM
I'm shocked I even have to spell it out for you. You are acting worse than derspiess defending the GOP.
Meh, fuck you. If I want to watch a discussion on the Catholic Church by two fags and a Jew, I'll go to my local free-trade coffee shop.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2013, 07:17:10 AM
Unless celibacy also makes institutions cover things up?
Oh, it definitely does. Parents feel much strongly, on a psychological level, about punishing child abuse than people who have no children (funnily enough you and CdM are the only people in this thread who think otherwise and you are both childless). So professional solidarity between celibate priests is definitely a factor contributing to the prevalence of cover ups in an organisation such as the catholic church.
Coming to think about it, it's another strong argument against compulsory celibacy (as it is against male-only priesthood) - any organization that gives power uniformly to representatives of a certain demographic is going to suffer from the lack of alternative perspective offered by people it excludes.
It is quite clear in this case that by excluding people with children from power, the catholic church is suffering from an attitude that is criminally dismissive of the severity of child abuse.
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 08:02:40 AM
Parents feel much strongly, on a psychological level, about punishing child abuse than people who have no children
Is that a good thing, though? Viewing wrong-doing in an overly emotional manner, rather than dispassionately, leads to lynch mobs, not justice.
I don't buy it Marty. I think the cover up was an institution trying to protect its own and a cultural failure, not because they weren't married. Something similar went on in numerous child homes in this country, and in the BBC. I think it's about power more than anything:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n21/andrew-ohagan/light-entertainment
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 08:02:40 AM
Parents feel much strongly, on a psychological level, about punishing child abuse than people who have no children
Man I don't know. I am way to tired to care as much about child abuse in far away places now that I using up my energy raising kids.
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 08:02:40 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2013, 07:17:10 AM
Unless celibacy also makes institutions cover things up?
Oh, it definitely does. Parents feel much strongly, on a psychological level, about punishing child abuse than people who have no children (funnily enough you and CdM are the only people in this thread who think otherwise and you are both childless). So professional solidarity between celibate priests is definitely a factor contributing to the prevalence of cover ups in an organisation such as the catholic church.
Coming to think about it, it's another strong argument against compulsory celibacy (as it is against male-only priesthood) - any organization that gives power uniformly to representatives of a certain demographic is going to suffer from the lack of alternative perspective offered by people it excludes.
It is quite clear in this case that by excluding people with children from power, the catholic church is suffering from an attitude that is criminally dismissive of the severity of child abuse.
And this isn't idle fact, it's cold hard conjecture.
Quote from: dps on February 25, 2013, 08:37:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 08:02:40 AM
Parents feel much strongly, on a psychological level, about punishing child abuse than people who have no children
Is that a good thing, though? Viewing wrong-doing in an overly emotional manner, rather than dispassionately, leads to lynch mobs, not justice.
I think that the more diverse the background and the viewpoint of various people making up acollective body, the more likely such body is to arrive at a correct decision.
I am not saying that the decision should be given over to concerned mothers only but it is clear that giving it up entirely to single guys is a recipe to disaster as well.
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2013, 08:47:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 08:02:40 AM
Parents feel much strongly, on a psychological level, about punishing child abuse than people who have no children
Man I don't know. I am way to tired to care as much about child abuse in far away places now that I using up my energy raising kids.
I am not talking about starting a global crusade but more of what would happen if you found out one of your work colleagues is molesting kids. Would you be happy to look away and have it covered up?
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 09:49:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2013, 08:47:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 08:02:40 AM
Parents feel much strongly, on a psychological level, about punishing child abuse than people who have no children
Man I don't know. I am way to tired to care as much about child abuse in far away places now that I using up my energy raising kids.
I am not talking about starting a global crusade but more of what would happen if you found out one of your work colleagues is molesting kids. Would you be happy to look away and have it covered up?
Would you? After all, you are one of the people who have have defended pedophiles here. You aren't likely to have children and are dismissive of "breeders". If such an act would be a career limiting move would some one as self absorbed as yourself be willing to ruin your career for the sake of crotch fruit?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2013, 10:00:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 09:49:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2013, 08:47:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 08:02:40 AM
Parents feel much strongly, on a psychological level, about punishing child abuse than people who have no children
Man I don't know. I am way to tired to care as much about child abuse in far away places now that I using up my energy raising kids.
I am not talking about starting a global crusade but more of what would happen if you found out one of your work colleagues is molesting kids. Would you be happy to look away and have it covered up?
Would you? After all, you are one of the people who have have defended pedophiles here. You aren't likely to have children and are dismissive of "breeders". If such an act would be a career limiting move would some one as self absorbed as yourself be willing to ruin your career for the sake of crotch fruit?
What the fuck are you even trying to say with this gibberish? Are you off your meds?
Quote from: Malthus on February 24, 2013, 11:00:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2013, 12:45:48 AM
You are taking the Paul statement for the laity not for the clergy. It is assumed that the clergy is intended to be more "Christ-like", then the common laity. You dismissed this for some odd reason, something about how they weren't all Jewish messiahs.
Paul says nothing about the clergy. Presumably, the clergy didn't even exist in its present form when Paul was writing. So how can Paul's statement be the religious basis for having unmarried clergy?
On its face, Paul's statement would apply to both laity and clergy.
Also, if you want to "imitate Christ" in such matters totally external to his ministry like his marital status, why not in other ways? Make priests get circumcised. Christ was. :P
Malthus, all your references go back to scripture. But in catholicism scripture isn't the only source of doctrine: tradition also is one, as well as major church councils. For instance, while I am aware that some popes were married, the vast majority have not been, and that crosses all the historically documented eras as well as the last 1000 years or so. The preference for celibate clergy is longstanding and well established.
I also find the idea that Raz posted, that Paul's statement would indicate clergy should be celibate as that is the most holy state, to be a reasonable one, if not definitive. (I would think that when a priest announces he absolutely can not resist having sex with the woman in the first pew, he would be encouraged to leave the priesthood and marry her first, rather than violate Paul's decree and have sex with her outside of marriage).
You made this statement:
QuoteThere simply isn't a religious reason, based on Christian doctrine, for unmarried priests. Or at least, I've never heard any.
I posted one, others have posted others, and for some reason you aren't content to just disagree with them, but are apparently denying their validity as reasons altogether.
I don't get it. At the end of the day, I think that enforced celibacy for priests is a disasterous policy for the church, and one that isn't necessary based on its own scriptures, theology, and traditions. But there are religious reasons for it, and is something the church is going to have to figure out on its own.
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 09:49:00 AM
I am not talking about starting a global crusade but more of what would happen if you found out one of your work colleagues is molesting kids. Would you be happy to look away and have it covered up?
I am not a very good example as I had pretty strong feeling about this long before I had kids since I worked with molested kids. In fact I sort of lost it on this board a few times about things like this back in the day :blush:
In kind of a strange way I think I would be less likely to go on some sort of crusade about it now, since the stakes for me are higher. If it cost me my job or put me in serious jeopardy to expose said molestation I would definitely have to consider that in context of my current obligations. I would probably still do it but something about being a parent makes you less militant, again hence the old management trick of getting employees to settle down and have kids...it tends to make them easier to control.
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 08:52:19 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 23, 2013, 08:29:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 08:05:41 PM
You can't, for example, claim to have a genuine religious requirement to kill people by quoting the commandment "thou shalt not kill" and by carefully explaining how this actually means you really should kill people.
Didn't some Christian dube do that very thing in relation to the notion of a just war ? :unsure:
Sure. Another example is Christians who murder abortion doctors. ;) "Pro-life" ... to the point of murder.
Wait, what??? (not on the murdering abortion doctor front but on the just war front)
Yes the bible sells not to kill people. Then it tells stories about god leading his people into wars and smiting their enemies. I would read the bible and say these are a collection of mythical stories from ancient times that really shouldn't be used as a basis of modern morality, and that we shouldn't presume they are internally consistent. But if you are, the just war theory isn't out of left field.
I would not have created this thread if I knew Raz would spend the first 4 pages shitting in it. <_<
Quote from: alfred russel on February 25, 2013, 10:28:15 AM
Malthus, all your references go back to scripture. But in catholicism scripture isn't the only source of doctrine: tradition also is one, as well as major church councils. For instance, while I am aware that some popes were married, the vast majority have not been, and that crosses all the historically documented eras as well as the last 1000 years or so. The preference for celibate clergy is longstanding and well established.
They aren't *my* references. They are the references *you* put forward from a Catholic source as the "religious reason". I have demonstrated that these sources do not say what the Catholic source claims they say.
Saying "tradition is a source of doctrine" merely makes your position self-referential: a position has a religious reason because it is traditional. It is religious because the Church has done it. Tradition alone cannot create a "teaching". There has to be some purpose.
Even the Church des not proceed that way, as Shelib has pointed out - certain matters are matters of doctrine and cannot be changed without destroying the Church: the Church cannot, for example, start denying the divinity of Jesus. Others are not - and according to Shelib, this is not.
QuoteI also find the idea that Raz posted, that Paul's statement would indicate clergy should be celibate as that is the most holy state, to be a reasonable one, if not definitive. (I would think that when a priest announces he absolutely can not resist having sex with the woman in the first pew, he would be encouraged to leave the priesthood and marry her first, rather than violate Paul's decree and have sex with her outside of marriage).
Except that there is nothing whatever in Paul's statement to indicate that his words were meant for priests. On their face, they were meant for everyone. For example, he specifically mentions widows. How many widows are also priests?
Quote
You made this statement:
QuoteThere simply isn't a religious reason, based on Christian doctrine, for unmarried priests. Or at least, I've never heard any.
I posted one, others have posted others, and for some reason you aren't content to just disagree with them, but are apparently denying their validity as reasons altogether.
No you haven't posted any. No-one has, because such does not exist. Consider what the term "doctrine" means - it is the body of teachings of the Church. What "teachings of the Church" require unmarried priests? Surely not 'because that's the way it is'. Intertia is not a "teaching". It is not a "religious purpose".
Quote
I don't get it. At the end of the day, I think that enforced celibacy for priests is a disasterous policy for the church, and one that isn't necessary based on its own scriptures, theology, and traditions. But there are religious reasons for it, and is something the church is going to have to figure out on its own.
I'm saying that there simply isn't anything in Catholic doctrine that requires unmarried priests. I don't know why you don't get it - it's an objectively true statement, one which a Cardinal of the Church apparently agrees with. There may be *traditional* reasons, but these are not matters of *doctrine* and are so not *religious reasons* unless the notion of a "religious reason" is watered down so much as to be meaningless.
On the priests abusing boys front, I'm quite willing to believe that the problem is statistically no worse than in any other comparable religion or profession in terms of numbers. I have no idea what the statistics say, but I can believe it. What makes it a true problem for the Church was of course its institutional response - to cover it up, to move abusing priests about.
It is plausable that this response was exacerbated by two factors: (1) a staffing shortage; and (2) the indulgence with which "sexual sinning" was viewed by the Church.
It is further plausable that both of these are exacerbated by the celebacy thing.
Hey, Malt, it is celibacy.
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2013, 10:58:37 AM
I'm saying that there simply isn't anything in Catholic doctrine that requires unmarried priests. I don't know why you don't get it - it's an objectively true statement, one which a Cardinal of the Church apparently agrees with.
Hold it there--lets back that one up.
I have never said that there is anything in Catholic doctrine that requires unmarried priests. As I stated before (ver batim), I think that enforced celibacy for priests is a disasterous policy for the church, and one that isn't necessary based on its own scriptures, theology, and traditions.
But that is different than saying their isn't a religious reason for something. There is a gap between a doctrine requiring something and a religious reason for a policy that is short of a doctrinal requirement. Some people have religous reasons for wanting to get rid of the celibacy requirement, and some people have religious reasons to keep it.
QuoteSaying "tradition is a source of doctrine" merely makes your position self-referential: a position has a religious reason because it is traditional. It is religious because the Church has done it. Tradition alone cannot create a "teaching". There has to be some purpose.
Take it up with the catholic church. Martin Luther did. I realize that is self-referential, but it is their religion. It is part of the reason they are so much slower to adopt to the modern world.
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 10:26:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2013, 10:00:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 09:49:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2013, 08:47:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 08:02:40 AM
Parents feel much strongly, on a psychological level, about punishing child abuse than people who have no children
Man I don't know. I am way to tired to care as much about child abuse in far away places now that I using up my energy raising kids.
I am not talking about starting a global crusade but more of what would happen if you found out one of your work colleagues is molesting kids. Would you be happy to look away and have it covered up?
Would you? After all, you are one of the people who have have defended pedophiles here. You aren't likely to have children and are dismissive of "breeders". If such an act would be a career limiting move would some one as self absorbed as yourself be willing to ruin your career for the sake of crotch fruit?
What the fuck are you even trying to say with this gibberish? Are you off your meds?
I thought it was clear enough. Would you do something about a coworker guilty of sex crimes if it meant a ruined career?
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2013, 11:07:43 AM
On the priests abusing boys front, I'm quite willing to believe that the problem is statistically no worse than in any other comparable religion or profession in terms of numbers. I have no idea what the statistics say, but I can believe it. What makes it a true problem for the Church was of course its institutional response - to cover it up, to move abusing priests about.
It is plausable that this response was exacerbated by two factors: (1) a staffing shortage; and (2) the indulgence with which "sexual sinning" was viewed by the Church.
It is further plausable that both of these are exacerbated by the celebacy thing.
The church is hardly the only organization to have an institutional response of covering it up. As time has gone by organization after organization from Penn State to the Boy Scouts have had this problem. I imagine that you'll find that institutions defending their members from accusations is more common then not.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 25, 2013, 11:20:30 AM
Hold it there--lets back that one up.
I have never said that there is anything in Catholic doctrine that requires unmarried priests. As I stated before (ver batim), I think that enforced celibacy for priests is a disasterous policy for the church, and one that isn't necessary based on its own scriptures, theology, and traditions.
Then why were you taking such issue with my statement which you specifically quoted as follows?
QuoteThere simply isn't a religious reason, based on Christian doctrine, for unmarried priests. Or at least, I've never heard any.
[Emphasis added]
You claimed:
QuoteI posted one, others have posted others, and for some reason you aren't content to just disagree with them, but are apparently denying their validity as reasons altogether.
Are you now saying you were wrong and you
haven't actually posted any? If so, we aren't disagreeing, right?
QuoteBut that is different than saying their isn't a religious reason for something. There is a gap between a doctrine requiring something and a religious reason for a policy that is short of a doctrinal requirement. Some people have religous reasons for wanting to get rid of the celibacy requirement, and some people have religious reasons to keep it.
QuoteSaying "tradition is a source of doctrine" merely makes your position self-referential: a position has a religious reason because it is traditional. It is religious because the Church has done it. Tradition alone cannot create a "teaching". There has to be some purpose.
Take it up with the catholic church. Martin Luther did. I realize that is self-referential, but it is their religion. It is part of the reason they are so much slower to adopt to the modern world.
Last I checked, Luther wanted to change doctrine.
Sure, I'll readily admit that there are "traditional" reasons for unmarried priests. What I'm saying is that beyond that (which is obvious and uncontroversial) there is no *religious reason* for this particular tradition - nothing based on actual Christian teachings (as opposed to institutional inertia) which would require it.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2013, 11:29:15 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2013, 11:07:43 AM
On the priests abusing boys front, I'm quite willing to believe that the problem is statistically no worse than in any other comparable religion or profession in terms of numbers. I have no idea what the statistics say, but I can believe it. What makes it a true problem for the Church was of course its institutional response - to cover it up, to move abusing priests about.
It is plausable that this response was exacerbated by two factors: (1) a staffing shortage; and (2) the indulgence with which "sexual sinning" was viewed by the Church.
It is further plausable that both of these are exacerbated by the celebacy thing.
The church is hardly the only organization to have an institutional response of covering it up. As time has gone by organization after organization from Penn State to the Boy Scouts have had this problem. I imagine that you'll find that institutions defending their members from accusations is more common then not.
I'm not claiming that the Church is the only organization with this problem.
The difference is, of course, that the Church (unlike say Penn State) is supposed to be a font of morality - indeed, claims to be
the font of morality. So a scandal of this sort bites harder.
The other issues - whether that scandal is made more prevelant or likely by celibacy - I find plausable, but of course, by its nature such a thing is hard to prove.
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2013, 11:38:18 AM
The difference is, of course, that the Church (unlike say Penn State) is supposed to be a font of morality
Heh. Joe Paterno's program was supposed to be the most moral upstanding college football program out there.
Though I guess that is sort of like saying the most truthful and honest politician out there.
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2013, 11:34:56 AM
Then why were you taking such issue with my statement which you specifically quoted as follows?
QuoteThere simply isn't a religious reason, based on Christian doctrine, for unmarried priests. Or at least, I've never heard any.
[Emphasis added]
You claimed:
QuoteI posted one, others have posted others, and for some reason you aren't content to just disagree with them, but are apparently denying their validity as reasons altogether.
Are you now saying you were wrong and you haven't actually posted any? If so, we aren't disagreeing, right?
I sort of think we are, but I really can't really justify continuing an argument about a religion I don't like on an issue I think it is stupid regarding whether its reasons for the policy are completely unjustified or just really bad. :P ;)
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2013, 11:38:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2013, 11:29:15 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2013, 11:07:43 AM
On the priests abusing boys front, I'm quite willing to believe that the problem is statistically no worse than in any other comparable religion or profession in terms of numbers. I have no idea what the statistics say, but I can believe it. What makes it a true problem for the Church was of course its institutional response - to cover it up, to move abusing priests about.
It is plausable that this response was exacerbated by two factors: (1) a staffing shortage; and (2) the indulgence with which "sexual sinning" was viewed by the Church.
It is further plausable that both of these are exacerbated by the celebacy thing.
The church is hardly the only organization to have an institutional response of covering it up. As time has gone by organization after organization from Penn State to the Boy Scouts have had this problem. I imagine that you'll find that institutions defending their members from accusations is more common then not.
I'm not claiming that the Church is the only organization with this problem.
The difference is, of course, that the Church (unlike say Penn State) is supposed to be a font of morality - indeed, claims to be the font of morality. So a scandal of this sort bites harder.
The other issues - whether that scandal is made more prevelant or likely by celibacy - I find plausable, but of course, by its nature such a thing is hard to prove.
I think these stories resonate because of the morality angle and the trust angle. I don't think celibacy factors into it really. These men abused young boys because they were attracted to young boys. If they were programers or lawyers or butcher or bakers they'd still be attracted to children. If their colleagues were married I think you'd still have problems with cover ups organizations tend to defend their members and most people are reluctant to throw a friend under the bus even if they deserve it.
Quote from: garbon on February 25, 2013, 11:13:10 AM
Hey, Malt, it is celibacy.
Maybe Malthus is talking about abstaining from celery?
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 12:03:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 25, 2013, 11:13:10 AM
Hey, Malt, it is celibacy.
Maybe Malthus is talking about abstaining from celery?
I'm thinking abstaining from celebrity gossip.
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2013, 10:34:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 09:49:00 AM
I am not talking about starting a global crusade but more of what would happen if you found out one of your work colleagues is molesting kids. Would you be happy to look away and have it covered up?
I am not a very good example as I had pretty strong feeling about this long before I had kids since I worked with molested kids. In fact I sort of lost it on this board a few times about things like this back in the day :blush:
And it's not like I've never been present at rape interviews in the Pediatrics ER or anything. But let's not stop the Martinus Express from blowing past the station and going straight to Shrillsville.
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2013, 11:07:43 AM
It is plausable that this response was exacerbated by two factors: (1) a staffing shortage; and (2) the indulgence with which "sexual sinning" was viewed by the Church.
On point 1 I think you're wrong. The overwhelming majority of these cases came before the shortage of priests or seminarians. As I think the cover up's are far more about an abuse of power and the protection of an institution over the vulnerable than anything else. The Church was hardly unique in that, as I've said, but is perhaps uniquely harmed by it because it undermines their moral credibility.
Rod Dreher has a line that I thinks very true. In the same way that 'honour' and 'glory' seemed like meaningless concepts next to the village WW1 memorial, so the concepts of 'holiness' and 'priesthood' were seriously emptied by the child abuse and the coverups.
QuoteMalthus, all your references go back to scripture. But in catholicism scripture isn't the only source of doctrine: tradition also is one, as well as major church councils. For instance, while I am aware that some popes were married, the vast majority have not been, and that crosses all the historically documented eras as well as the last 1000 years or so. The preference for celibate clergy is longstanding and well established.
Peter was married. Aside from that there are early 4th century Church Councils that prohibit bishops from marrying and they mention that the Roman Rite already had a tradition of total clerical celibacy.
Often it was a tool for the enforcement of the Roman Church and a tool of Papal reform. For example in Northern Italy (especially Lombardia and areas ruled by Ravenna) there was a tolerance of priests with concubines. In the late dark ages there were popular revolts against local elites and the priests because this was viewed as sullying the priestly office (how could the same hands that performed transubstantiation - a routine miracle - also wander lustfully on a woman?). The Popes sent representatives who not only sided with the populist revolts (a recurring theme in Papal history) but used them as a way of enforcing Roman rite practices and unity in the region and reforming the Papacy in Rome. Similarly in their treatment of the Mozarabic rite in Spain.
We already know what Martinus would do if he ever saw someone molesting kids: Speak passionately in their defence, provided that they're not with the Catholic Church.
Quote from: Neil on February 25, 2013, 12:43:49 PM
We already know what Martinus would do if he ever saw someone molesting kids: Speak passionately in their defence, provided that they're not with the Catholic Church.
'But he's a member of the Academy! He's an artist!"
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on February 25, 2013, 12:03:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 25, 2013, 11:13:10 AM
Hey, Malt, it is celibacy.
Maybe Malthus is talking about abstaining from celery?
Everyone should abstain from celery. That goes without saying.
It's the only food that costs more calories to eat than eating it provides. :yuk:
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2013, 01:31:31 PM
Everyone should abstain from celery. That goes without saying.
Screw you, and the peanut butter that goes down the middle.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 25, 2013, 01:35:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2013, 01:31:31 PM
Everyone should abstain from celery. That goes without saying.
Screw you, and the peanut butter that goes down the middle.
:x
What a waste of good peanut butter.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2013, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2013, 11:07:43 AM
It is plausable that this response was exacerbated by two factors: (1) a staffing shortage; and (2) the indulgence with which "sexual sinning" was viewed by the Church.
On point 1 I think you're wrong. The overwhelming majority of these cases came before the shortage of priests or seminarians. As I think the cover up's are far more about an abuse of power and the protection of an institution over the vulnerable than anything else. The Church was hardly unique in that, as I've said, but is perhaps uniquely harmed by it because it undermines their moral credibility.
I thought that the shortage of priests went back to the 1960s, or even earlier. Am I mistaken in that?
Quote
QuoteMalthus, all your references go back to scripture. But in catholicism scripture isn't the only source of doctrine: tradition also is one, as well as major church councils. For instance, while I am aware that some popes were married, the vast majority have not been, and that crosses all the historically documented eras as well as the last 1000 years or so. The preference for celibate clergy is longstanding and well established.
Peter was married. Aside from that there are early 4th century Church Councils that prohibit bishops from marrying and they mention that the Roman Rite already had a tradition of total clerical celibacy.
I noticed that Malthus, in responding to AR, skipped over the point about church councils.
Celery is rad.
Quote from: garbon on February 25, 2013, 01:36:07 PM
:x
What a waste of good peanut butter.
You are just Little Miss Critic today, aren't you? Goddamn.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 25, 2013, 01:59:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 25, 2013, 01:36:07 PM
:x
What a waste of good peanut butter.
You are just Little Miss Critic today, aren't you? Goddamn.
I've only critiqued your complaints in two instances. ;)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 25, 2013, 01:35:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2013, 01:31:31 PM
Everyone should abstain from celery. That goes without saying.
Screw you, and the peanut butter that goes down the middle.
Chunky, or smoothie?
'cause I'm not screwing with chunky.
Quote from: dps on February 25, 2013, 01:37:02 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2013, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2013, 11:07:43 AM
It is plausable that this response was exacerbated by two factors: (1) a staffing shortage; and (2) the indulgence with which "sexual sinning" was viewed by the Church.
On point 1 I think you're wrong. The overwhelming majority of these cases came before the shortage of priests or seminarians. As I think the cover up's are far more about an abuse of power and the protection of an institution over the vulnerable than anything else. The Church was hardly unique in that, as I've said, but is perhaps uniquely harmed by it because it undermines their moral credibility.
I thought that the shortage of priests went back to the 1960s, or even earlier. Am I mistaken in that?
Quote
QuoteMalthus, all your references go back to scripture. But in catholicism scripture isn't the only source of doctrine: tradition also is one, as well as major church councils. For instance, while I am aware that some popes were married, the vast majority have not been, and that crosses all the historically documented eras as well as the last 1000 years or so. The preference for celibate clergy is longstanding and well established.
Peter was married. Aside from that there are early 4th century Church Councils that prohibit bishops from marrying and they mention that the Roman Rite already had a tradition of total clerical celibacy.
I noticed that Malthus, in responding to AR, skipped over the point about church councils.
Not seeing why a church council is relevant in this situation. Allegedly, all these councils did was mention that a tradition of celebacy existed in one rite of the Church. They extend the tradition back in time to the 4th century, but they do not provide a reason why it arose it the first place.
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2013, 02:44:19 PM
Chunky, or smoothie?
'cause I'm not screwing with chunky.
What the hell? What's the point of peanut butter without chunks of peanuts? That's not peanut butter, that's peanut spackling.
Yeah, I have a hard time trusting anyone who doesn't like chunky peanut butter.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 25, 2013, 02:57:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2013, 02:44:19 PM
Chunky, or smoothie?
'cause I'm not screwing with chunky.
What the hell? What's the point of peanut butter without chunks of peanuts? That's not peanut butter, that's peanut spackling.
I had the same position until I had braces and only could eat creamy for a long time. I now exclusively prefer creamy. -_-
Quote from: derspiess on February 25, 2013, 03:03:47 PM
Yeah, I have a hard time trusting anyone who doesn't like chunky peanut butter.
Would you say it's a "bar to trust"?
Quote from: fahdiz on February 25, 2013, 03:04:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 25, 2013, 03:03:47 PM
Yeah, I have a hard time trusting anyone who doesn't like chunky peanut butter.
Would you say it's a "bar to trust"?
<_<
Quote from: fahdiz on February 25, 2013, 03:04:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 25, 2013, 03:03:47 PM
Yeah, I have a hard time trusting anyone who doesn't like chunky peanut butter.
Would you say it's a "bar to trust"?
I'm saying I wouldn't buy creamy peanut butter even if it only cost a tiddler :contract:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 25, 2013, 02:57:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2013, 02:44:19 PM
Chunky, or smoothie?
'cause I'm not screwing with chunky.
What the hell? What's the point of peanut butter without chunks of peanuts? That's not peanut butter, that's peanut spackling.
Eating is one thing; screwing another. :P
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2013, 02:48:56 PM
Quote from: dps on February 25, 2013, 01:37:02 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2013, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 25, 2013, 11:07:43 AM
It is plausable that this response was exacerbated by two factors: (1) a staffing shortage; and (2) the indulgence with which "sexual sinning" was viewed by the Church.
On point 1 I think you're wrong. The overwhelming majority of these cases came before the shortage of priests or seminarians. As I think the cover up's are far more about an abuse of power and the protection of an institution over the vulnerable than anything else. The Church was hardly unique in that, as I've said, but is perhaps uniquely harmed by it because it undermines their moral credibility.
I thought that the shortage of priests went back to the 1960s, or even earlier. Am I mistaken in that?
Quote
QuoteMalthus, all your references go back to scripture. But in catholicism scripture isn't the only source of doctrine: tradition also is one, as well as major church councils. For instance, while I am aware that some popes were married, the vast majority have not been, and that crosses all the historically documented eras as well as the last 1000 years or so. The preference for celibate clergy is longstanding and well established.
Peter was married. Aside from that there are early 4th century Church Councils that prohibit bishops from marrying and they mention that the Roman Rite already had a tradition of total clerical celibacy.
I noticed that Malthus, in responding to AR, skipped over the point about church councils.
Not seeing why a church council is relevant in this situation. Allegedly, all these councils did was mention that a tradition of celebacy existed in one rite of the Church. They extend the tradition back in time to the 4th century, but they do not provide a reason why it arose it the first place.
His point was that councils, not just the Bible, are sources of Catholic Church doctrine.
All you crunchy PB fags need to be sent to a camp.