The Debarring of homosexuals From the papacy:

[Derryck]

:-6

November 27-2005:

The Debarring Of Homosexuals From The Catholic Church:

If the Roman Catholic Church's new decree, is to debar men and women who profess to be homosexuals from entrance to that institution, so let it be. Trying to change an institution that professes rigid conservatives policies for it's clergy, is like telling Christians that Jesus The Christ, have been found in default of that title.

For decades the Papacy under the former Pontiff-John Paul, has insisted that Homosexual life/lifestyle conflicts with the scriptures decree, that men or women having relations of a sexual nature with the same gender is wrong or evil, and those who indulge in such acts are headed for damnation.

Therefore, I cannot fathom why any rational thinking person/s would want to enter such an environment where he or she is not wanted, or would be scorned or frowned upon.

God did not say anywhere, (if I recall correctly), that all humans must be Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah Witnesses, Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Spiritualists, or Seventh Day Adventists.

So why should any organization purport the view, that homosexuals are violating God's desires for normal human existence?

And why should any Roman Catholic follower or believer, who truly believes in the God of Christians, allow themselves to be treated as though they were the scum of the earth, if they fail to comply with institutional policy or Cannon Laws?

I say if you truly believe in God, and understand who & what we are as his creation, then no institution or church organization can prevent you from receiving his blessings or mercy. Because all humans are imperfect, and have done wrong to others at some time or another.

Therefore, if this God is one who forgives his children, then The Roman Catholic Institution, also needs to be forgiven for their mis-interpretation of God's words and righteousness!

Om Shanti.

Derryck S. Griffith.

Educator & Advocate.

[Bronwen]

Derryck wrote: :-6

November 27-2005:



The Debarring Of Homosexuals From The Catholic Church:

If the Roman Catholic Church's new decree, is to debar men and women who profess to be homosexuals from entrance to that institution, so let it be. Trying to change an institution that professes rigid conservatives policies for it's clergy, is like telling Christians that Jesus The Christ, have been found in default of that title.

For decades the Papacy under the former Pontiff-John Paul, has insisted that Homosexual life/lifestyle conflicts with the scriptures decree, that men or women having relations of a sexual nature with the same gender is wrong or evil, and those who indulge in such acts are headed for damnation.

Therefore, I cannot fathom why any rational thinking person/s would want to enter such an environment where he or she is not wanted, or would be scorned or frowned upon.

God did not say anywhere, (if I recall correctly), that all humans must be Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah Witnesses, Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Spiritualists, or Seventh Day Adventists.

So why should any organization purport the view, that homosexuals are violating God's desires for normal human existence?

And why should any Roman Catholic follower or believer, who truly believes in the God of Christians, allow themselves to be treated as though they were the scum of the earth, if they fail to comply with institutional policy or Cannon Laws?

I say if you truly believe in God, and understand who & what we are as his creation, then no institution or church organization can prevent you from receiving his blessings or mercy. Because all humans are imperfect, and have done wrong to others at some time or another.

Therefore, if this God is one who forgives his children, then The Roman Catholic Institution, also needs to be forgiven for their mis-interpretation of God's words and righteousness!

Om Shanti.

Derryck S. Griffith.

Educator & Advocate.What on EARTH are you talking about? It's certainly a timely and legitimate subject for discussion, but you are 'all over the place' here.

Firstly, you title the thread 'The Debarring of homosexuals from the PAPACY', then you headline your first post 'The Debarring Of Homosexuals From The Catholic Church', a much different thing. Which of these are you alleging is true, or about to happen?

Secondly, the Church's position, for MUCH longer than the pontificate of JPII, has been, and remains, that God expects those with a homosexual orientation to live lives of celibacy. You may think that is unrealistic, and I, as a lifelong Catholic, may agree with you; however, the modern Church has never condemned homosexuality as an orientation, and certainly never considered homosexuals 'the scum of the earth'.

Thirdly, you identify yourself as an 'Educator and Advocate'. In what subject(s) do you educate and what, in general, do you advocate? Most educators, especially in the field of religion, know how to spell 'canon law' and know the rudiments of good grammar.

Fourthly, you named a number of other religions and denominations, most of whom consider homosexual acts sinful. It's hardly a Roman Catholic monopoly. Why single out one particular Church?

Fifthly, what is the significance of posting a Hindu mantra above your name?

You are correct that we are all sinners and need God's grace and forgiveness.

[lady cop]

yes, load.

[Galbally]

Erm, since when was the fact that the Catholic Church does not advocate homosexuality become news, circa 1550?

[Ted]

I couldn't care less what te pope or the magesterium say. Perhaps some day they will enter the 21st. cent. Maybe in the year 2500. It only took them about 400 years to exonerate Galileo.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Bronwen]

If anyone is still interested, here is the entire document (the interpolated numbers are to the endnotes, which I have omitted, but they can be found at the bottom of the link):

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc ... ecnum=6717

On Priesthood and Those With Homosexual Tendencies

Introduction

In continuity with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and, in particular, with the Decree Optatam totius1 on priestly formation, the Congregation for Catholic Education has published various documents with the aim of promoting a suitable, integral formation of future priests, by offering guidelines and precise norms regarding its diverse aspects.2 In the meantime, the 1990 Synod of Bishops also reflected on the formation of priests in the circumstances of the present day, with the intention of bringing to completion the doctrine of the Council on this theme and making it more explicit and effective in today's world. Following this Synod, Pope John Paul II published the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores dabo vobis.3

In light of this abundant teaching, the present Instruction does not intend to dwell on all questions in the area of affectivity and sexuality that require an attentive discernment during the entire period of formation. Rather, it contains norms concerning a specific question, made more urgent by the current situation, and that is: whether to admit to the seminary and to holy orders candidates who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

I. Affective Maturity and Spiritual Fatherhood

According to the constant Tradition of the Church, only a baptized person of the male sex validly receives sacred ordination.4 By means of the sacrament of orders, the Holy Spirit configures the candidate to Jesus Christ in a new and specific way: the priest, in fact, sacramentally represents Christ, the head, shepherd and spouse of the Church.5 Because of this configuration to Christ, the entire life of the sacred minister must be animated by the gift of his whole person to the Church and by an authentic pastoral charity.6

The candidate to the ordained ministry, therefore, must reach affective maturity. Such maturity will allow him to relate correctly to both men and women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual fatherhood towards the Church community that will be entrusted to him.7

II. Homosexuality and Ordained Ministry

From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.

Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.8

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter.9

In the light of such teaching, this dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture."10

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem — for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.



III. Discernment by the Church Concerning the Suitability of Candidates

There are two inseparable elements in every priestly vocation: the free gift of God and the responsible freedom of the man. A vocation is a gift of divine grace, received through the Church, in the Church and for the service of the Church. In responding to the call of God, the man offers himself freely to him in love.11 The desire alone to become a priest is not sufficient, and there does not exist a right to receive sacred ordination. It belongs to the Church — in her responsibility to define the necessary requirements for receiving the sacraments instituted by Christ — to discern the suitability of him who desires to enter the seminary,12 to accompany him during his years of formation, and to call him to holy orders if he is judged to possess the necessary qualities.13

The formation of the future priest must distinctly articulate, in an essentially complementary manner, the four dimensions of formation: human, spiritual, intellectual and pastoral.14 In this context, it is necessary to highlight the particular importance of human formation, as the necessary foundation of all formation.15 In order to admit a candidate to ordination to the diaconate, the Church must verify, among other things, that the candidate has reached affective maturity.16

The call to orders is the personal responsibility of the bishop17 or the major superior. Bearing in mind the opinion of those to whom he has entrusted the responsibility of formation, the bishop or major superior, before admitting the candidate to ordination, must arrive at a morally certain judgment on his qualities. In the case of a serious doubt in this regard, he must not admit him to ordination.18

The discernment of a vocation and of the maturity of the candidate is also a serious duty of the rector and of the other persons entrusted with the work of formation in the seminary. Before every ordination, the rector must express his own judgment on whether the qualities required by the Church are present in the candidate.19

In the discernment concerning the suitability for ordination, the spiritual director has an important task. Although he is bound to secrecy, he represents the Church in the internal forum. In his discussions with the candidate, the spiritual director must especially point out the demands of the Church concerning priestly chastity and the affective maturity that is characteristic of the priest, as well as help him to discern whether he has the necessary qualities.20 The spiritual director has the obligation to evaluate all the qualities of the candidate's personality and to make sure that he does not present disturbances of a sexual nature, which are incompatible with the priesthood. If a candidate practices homosexuality or presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director, as well as his confessor, have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding toward ordination.

It goes without saying that the candidate himself has the primary responsibility for his own formation.21 He must offer himself trustingly to the discernment of the Church, of the bishop who calls him to orders, of the rector of the seminary, of his spiritual director and of the other seminary educators to whom the bishop or major superior has entrusted the task of forming future priests. It would be gravely dishonest for a candidate to hide his own homosexuality in order to proceed, despite everything, toward ordination. Such a deceitful attitude does not correspond to the spirit of truth, loyalty and openness that must characterize the personality of him who believes he is called to serve Christ and his Church in the ministerial priesthood.

Conclusion

This Congregation reaffirms the need for bishops, major superiors and all relevant authorities to carry out an attentive discernment concerning the suitability of candidates for holy orders, from the time of admission to the seminary until ordination. This discernment must be done in light of a conception of the ministerial priesthood that is in accordance with the teaching of the Church.

Let bishops, episcopal conferences and major superiors look to see that the constant norms of this Instruction be faithfully observed for the good of the candidates themselves, and to guarantee that the Church always has suitable priests who are true shepherds according to the heart of Christ.

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, on 31 August 2005, approved this present Instruction and ordered its publication.



Rome, November 4, 2005, Memorial of Saint Charles Borromeo, Patron of Seminaries

ZENON Card. GROCHOLEWSKI

Prefect

+ J. MICHAEL MILLER, C.S.B.

Titular Archbishop of Vertara

Secretary

[BabyRider]

Okie dokie....I don't have the interest or the tolerance to get really deep into this topic, but I am curious: Is this actually saying that although the Catholic church believes homosexuality is a sin, they are allowing gay clergy anyway, and that as long as they don't practice homosexuality it's ok and that any tendencies they may have had must have been overcome for a certain number of years to be accepted??? Seriously, someone please tell me that this is not the case and I am misinterpreting what I'm reading. 'Cuz I knew all along that organized religion was made up of and run by some of the worst hypocrites in the world, but this.....THIS is beyond reason.

[Bronwen]

BabyRider wrote: Okie dokie....I don't have the interest or the tolerance to get really deep into this topic, but I am curious: Is this actually saying that although the Catholic church believes homosexuality is a sin, they are allowing gay clergy anyway, and that as long as they don't practice homosexuality it's ok and that any tendencies they may have had must have been overcome for a certain number of years to be accepted??? Seriously, someone please tell me that this is not the case and I am misinterpreting what I'm reading. 'Cuz I knew all along that organized religion was made up of and run by some of the worst hypocrites in the world, but this.....THIS is beyond reason.BR, the main reason I have made contributions to this thread is that the opening post was such nonsense that I felt it had to be challenged. Your post, on the other hand, is quite reasonable and your questions are good ones, and I'll try to address each of them directly. Obviously I'm not an official spokesman for the Catholic Church, but this is my interpretation of MODERN Church teaching and, I think, reasonably accurate.

The Catholic Church believes that God intended sexual realtions for married couples and outside that relationship they are immoral. Of course, this belief is hardly unique to Catholicism.

Therefore, the Church believes that God expects homosexuals to adopt a celibate lifestyle. There is no condemnation of homosexuality as an psychological orientation, nor does the Church believe homosexuality to be a 'choice', as some fundamentalist Protestants claim.

Currently, the Western rite of the Catholic Church, which is by far the largest, requires that most of its clergy be celibate, though it occasionally ordains married men, usually clergy from other denominations who convert to Catholicism and wish to remain clergy. The various Eastern rites have always have a married clergy, though they ordain bachelors as well.

The main reason for the preference for a celibate clergy is the example of Christ Himself. Had Christ married, it is very unlikely that the Church would require celibacy of any of its clergy, although there are certainly practical aspects also, such as having more time for one's priestly duties. On the other hand, there is no Church doctrine requiring priestly celibacy, it's purely a regulation that can be changed, and very well might be in the years ahead. Until that happens, every candidate for the Western priesthood, with a very few exceptions as I mentioned, must be willing to live a celibate life, whether heter- or homosexual in orientation.

As far as your closing statements are concerned, you are entitled to your opinion, which is a polite way of saying that I disagree with you. I have to admit, though,

that homosexuals who wish to be active Catholics are at a disadvantage, since heterosexuals who do not wish to be celibate can marry and homosexuals cannot. Even if homosexual marriage were allowed by law, the Church would not recognize it, and again, this viewpoint is hardly unique, being shared with many other Christian denoms and other religions such as Judaism and Islam. I'm not sure if that is hypocrisy or just unfairness, like so many other things in life.

[William Ess]

[QUOTE=Bronwen]...............Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture."QUOTE]

It is interesting to note that the Church does not debar homosexuals per se and presumably an applicant for holy orders who was homosexual but did not practice homosexuality, did not present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support an homosexual culture would be accepted, all other things being equal, for ordination. The RC clergy are nowadays required to be celibate and a homosexual priest would, presumably, find celibacy no easier to maintain than his heterosexual colleagues.

There is however a further dimension to this. The RC church believes in the importance and sanctity of the 'nuclear' family unit and it is difficult to understand how the homosexual pont of view might incline towards this.

[zinkyusa]

Bronwen wrote: BR, the main reason I have made contributions to this thread is that the opening post was such nonsense that I felt it had to be challenged. Your post, on the other hand, is quite reasonable and your questions are good ones, and I'll try to address each of them directly. Obviously I'm not an official spokesman for the Catholic Church, but this is my interpretation of MODERN Church teaching and, I think, reasonably accurate.

The Catholic Church believes that God intended sexual realtions for married couples and outside that relationship they are immoral. Of course, this belief is hardly unique to Catholicism.

Therefore, the Church believes that God expects homosexuals to adopt a celibate lifestyle. There is no condemnation of homosexuality as an psychological orientation, nor does the Church believe homosexuality to be a 'choice', as some fundamentalist Protestants claim.

Currently, the Western rite of the Catholic Church, which is by far the largest, requires that most of its clergy be celibate, though it occasionally ordains married men, usually clergy from other denominations who convert to Catholicism and wish to remain clergy. The various Eastern rites have always have a married clergy, though they ordain bachelors as well.

The main reason for the preference for a celibate clergy is the example of Christ Himself. Had Christ married, it is very unlikely that the Church would require celibacy of any of its clergy, although there are certainly practical aspects also, such as having more time for one's priestly duties. On the other hand, there is no Church doctrine requiring priestly celibacy, it's purely a regulation that can be changed, and very well might be in the years ahead. Until that happens, every candidate for the Western priesthood, with a very few exceptions as I mentioned, must be willing to live a celibate life, whether heter- or homosexual in orientation.

As far as your closing statements are concerned, you are entitled to your opinion, which is a polite way of saying that I disagree with you. I have to admit, though,

that homosexuals who wish to be active Catholics are at a disadvantage, since heterosexuals who do not wish to be celibate can marry and homosexuals cannot. Even if homosexual marriage were allowed by law, the Church would not recognize it, and again, this viewpoint is hardly unique, being shared with many other Christian denoms and other religions such as Judaism and Islam. I'm not sure if that is hypocrisy or just unfairness, like so many other things in life.


No one really know whether Jesus was married or celibate. From what I can find it was pretty much self imposed as for number of years priests were not celibate:

http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm

A Brief History of Celibacy in the

Catholic Church

First Century

Peter, the first pope, and the apostles that Jesus chose were, for the most part, married men. The New Testament implies that women presided at eucharistic meals in the early church.

Second and Third Century

Age of Gnosticism: light and spirit are good, darkness and material things are evil. A person cannot be married and be perfect. However, most priests were married.

Fourth Century

306-Council of Elvira, Spain, decree #43: a priest who sleeps with his wife the night before Mass will lose his job.

325-Council of Nicea: decreed that after ordination a priest could not marry. Proclaimed the Nicene Creed.

352-Council of Laodicea: women are not to be ordained. This suggests that before this time there was ordination of women.

385-Pope Siricius left his wife in order to become pope. Decreed that priests may no longer sleep with their wives.

Fifth Century

401-St. Augustine wrote, “Nothing is so powerful in drawing the spirit of a man downwards as the caresses of a woman.”

Sixth Century

567-2nd Council of Tours: any cleric found in bed with his wife would be excommunicated for a year and reduced to the lay state.

580-Pope Pelagius II: his policy was not to bother married priests as long as they did not hand over church property to wives or children.

590-604-Pope Gregory “the Great” said that all sexual desire is sinful in itself (meaning that sexual desire is intrinsically evil?).

Seventh Century

France: documents show that the majority of priest were married.

Eighth Century

St. Boniface reported to the pope that in Germany almost no bishop or priest was celibate.

Ninth Century

836-Council of Aix-la-Chapelle openly admitted that abortions and infanticide took place in convents and monasteries to cover up activities of uncelibate clerics.

St. Ulrich, a holy bishop, argued from scripture and common sense that the only way to purify the church from the worst excesses of celibacy was to permit priests to marry.

Eleventh Century

1045-Pope Boniface IX dispensed himself from celibacy and resigned in order to marry.

1074-Pope Gregory VII said anyone to be ordained must first pledge celibacy: ‘priests [must] first escape from the clutches of their wives.’

1095-Pope Urban II had priests’ wives sold into slavery, children were abandoned.

Twelfth Century

1123-Pope Calistus II: First Lateran Council decreed that clerical marriages were invalid.

1139-Pope Innocent II: Second Lateran Council confirmed the previous council’s decree.

Fourteenth Century

Bishop Pelagio complains that women are still ordained and hearing confessions.

Fifteenth Century

Transition; 50% of priests are married and accepted by the people.

Sixteenth Century

1545-63-Council of Trent states that celibacy and virginity are superior to marriage.

1517-Martin Luther.

1530-Henry VIII.

Seventeenth Century

Inquisition. Galileo. Newton.

Eighteenth Century

1776-American Declaration of Independence.

1789-French Revolution.

Nineteenth Century

1804-Napoleon.

1882-Darwin.

1847-Marx, Communist Manifesto.

1858-Freud.

1869-First Vatican Council; infallibility of pope.

Twentieth Century

1930-Pope Pius XI: sex can be good and holy.

1951-Pope Pius XII: married Lutheran pastor ordained catholic priest in Germany.

1962-Pope John XXIII: Vatican Council II; vernacular; marriage is equal to virginity.

1966-Pope Paul VI: celibacy dispensations.

1970s-Ludmilla Javorova and several other Czech women ordained to serve needs of women imprisoned by Communists.

1978-Pope John Paul II: puts a freeze on dispensations.

1983-New Canon Law.

1980-Married Anglican/Episcopal pastors are ordained as catholic priests in the U.S.; also in Canada and England in 1994.



Popes who were married

St. Peter, Apostle

St. Felix III 483-492 (2 children)

St. Hormidas 514-523 (1 son)

St. Silverus (Antonia) 536-537

Hadrian II 867-872 (1 daughter)

Clement IV 1265-1268 (2 daughters)

Felix V 1439-1449 (1 son)

[William Ess]

zinkyusa wrote: No one really know whether Jesus was married or celibate. From what I can find it was pretty much self imposed as for number of years priests were not celibate:

)


I believe celibacy as a requirement for the priesthood is a relatively recent - 12th century - innovation and has more to do with ensuring the the priesthood has the minimum of diversions than it has with scriptural precedent. I think it is reasonably assumed that Jesus was a bachelor if only because no mention is made of his wife in the synoptic gospels. Although nothing is known of the greater part of his life, I think a marriage is improbable if only because any issue resulting would have led to the complication of the Grandson (or, mirabile dictu, Grand-daughter) of God which would have muddied the ecclesiastical waters somewhat.

[zinkyusa]

William Ess wrote: I believe celibacy as a requirement for the priesthood is a relatively recent - 12th century - innovation and has more to do with ensuring the the priesthood has the minimum of diversions than it has with scriptural precedent. I think it is reasonably assumed that Jesus was a bachelor if only because no mention is made of his wife in the synoptic gospels. Although nothing is known of the greater part of his life, I think a marriage is improbable if only because any issue resulting would have led to the complication of the Grandson (or, mirabile dictu, Grand-daughter) of God which would have muddied the ecclesiastical waters somewhat.


To my knowledge none of the synoptic gospels was actually written by anyone who personally knew Jesus. Thus I question the validity of the virigin birth and the whole he was the only son of God thing...There are some who believe Mary Magdalene may have been his wife or lover. She may have even been a disciple.

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblepeople ... dalene.htm

[William Ess]

zinkyusa wrote: To my knowledge none of the synoptic gospels was actually written by anyone who personally knew Jesus. Thus I question the validity of the virigin birth and the whole he was the only son of God thing...There are some who believe Mary Magdalene may have been his wife or lover. She may have even been a disciple.

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblepeople ... dalene.htm


I believe the synoptic gospels were written by his disciples who knew him during his ministry. I think I would want some pretty strong evidence to draw the conclusions you espouse.

[William Ess]

Ted wrote: It only took them about 400 years to exonerate Galileo.

Shalom

Ted:-6


I am no champion of the Roman Catholic Church but must in fairness point out that history has treated them rather unfairly over the question of Galileo. It is worth delving into the history books to see what actually did happen.

[Marie5656]

OK, since this post has been bumped, I have a question, in hopes that someone with more knowledge of how the Bible is interpreted can answer this.

In the matter of celebacy within the Catholic priesthood ..why is it that other religeons which follow the teachings of the bible, allow thier clergy to marry(and in some cases even allow women into the minestry) while the Catholics do not. Of course, of you want to be quite literal, it only says celebate, not unmarried.

So, what is the deal here? I do recall somewhere in the teachings, humans were told to "be fruitful and multiply". But the priests are not allowed to? Is there really a valid reasoning for this? I think there is room for interpretation and for the teachings to be brought into the 21st century without compromising them.

I mean, the "laws" and interpretations of what was written were probably fine for that time....but we are no longer there.

[zinkyusa]

William Ess wrote: I believe the synoptic gospels were written by his disciples who knew him during his ministry. I think I would want some pretty strong evidence to draw the conclusions you espouse.


I think the closest was about 65 to100 years after Jesus supposedly died (Mark I think)...They were written down based on oral tradition making it doubtful IMO that the writers knew Jesus personally. They were also written in Greek and Jesus spoke Aramaic.

I didn't say I agree with the conclusion of Mary Magdalene being a wife or disciple but there is some evidence. For example some of the gospels say she was permitted into Jesus tomb. Only spouses or family members were permitted in tombs under Roman laws of the time.

[William Ess]

Marie5656 wrote: OK, since this post has been bumped, I have a question, in hopes that someone with more knowledge of how the Bible is interpreted can answer this.

In the matter of celebacy within the Catholic priesthood ..why is it that other religeons which follow the teachings of the bible, allow thier clergy to marry(and in some cases even allow women into the minestry) while the Catholics do not. Of course, of you want to be quite literal, it only says celebate, not unmarried.

So, what is the deal here? I do recall somewhere in the teachings, humans were told to "be fruitful and multiply". But the priests are not allowed to? Is there really a valid reasoning for this? I think there is room for interpretation and for the teachings to be brought into the 21st century without compromising them.

I mean, the "laws" and interpretations of what was written were probably fine for that time....but we are no longer there.


My understanding is that celebacy is enforced for the reason that family responsibilities would divert a priest's attention from his vocation; the theory being that the church should have his full attention at all times. I do not believe there is any particular clerical significance in the ruling which could be changed tomorrow if the Vatican thought fit.

Other churches take a different point of view: the CofE, for example, believe that family commitments strengthen a priests ministry rather than the opposite.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

(Popes are single and generally look well for their years. Canterbury is married and looks somewhat harrassed.....................)

[William Ess]

zinkyusa wrote: I think the closest was about 65 to100 years after Jesus supposedly died (Mark I think)...They were written down based on oral tradition making it doubtful IMO that the writers knew Jesus personally. They were also written in Greek and Jesus spoke Aramaic.

I didn't say I agree with the conclusion of Mary Magdalene being a wife or disciple but there is some evidence. For example some of the gospels say she was permitted into Jesus tomb. Only spouses or family members were permitted in tombs under Roman laws of the time.


I understood that recent scholarship had revised this estimate considerably; placing the authorship of the synoptics to about 40AD.

The evidence of MM being Jesus' wife is rather weak and depends on the rigidity with which the law was monitored and the depth of questioning by those (if any) on guard at the tomb. English law says you are only permitted to drive at 70 mph on motorways.....................

[zinkyusa]

William Ess wrote: I understood that recent scholarship had revised this estimate considerably; placing the authorship of the synoptics to about 40AD.

The evidence of MM being Jesus' wife is rather weak and depends on the rigidity with which the law was monitored and the depth of questioning by those (if any) on guard at the tomb. English law says you are only permitted to drive at 70 mph on motorways.....................


Change recent to conservative, and you are correct sir. Anyway, the issue was celibacy of priests immitating the life of Jesus to wit I remain unconvinced.

[William Ess]

zinkyusa wrote: the issue was celibacy of priests immitating the life of Jesus to wit I remain unconvinced.


The issue of celibacy did not come into vogue until 1200 years after the death of Christ

[zinkyusa]

William Ess wrote: The issue of celibacy did not come into vogue until 1200 years after the death of Christ


indeed we have established that fact, I was attempting to get back on thread.

[Ted]

The first Gospel written is Mark and is dated in the late 60s. The last Gospel written is dated between 90 and 110. This is according to the latest scholarship. (Dom Crossan at the Vancouver School of Theology, July 2006).

The Gospels of course are not biography but the developing traditions of the church at the time of writing. They tell us what the church had come to believe about this Jesus of Nazareth.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[William Ess]

Ted wrote: The first Gospel written is Mark and is dated in the late 60s. The last Gospel written is dated between 90 and 110. This is according to the latest scholarship. (Dom Crossan at the Vancouver School of Theology, July 2006).

The Gospels of course are not biography but the developing traditions of the church at the time of writing. They tell us what the church had come to believe about this Jesus of Nazareth.

Shalom

Ted:-6


I was under the impression that this date had been revised forward a little following some discoveries made ibn the middle east. Even so, the late 60's would have the events still clear in memory.

[Bronwen]

Marie5656 wrote: OK, since this post has been bumped, I have a question, in hopes that someone with more knowledge of how the Bible is interpreted can answer this.

In the matter of celebacy within the Catholic priesthood ..why is it that other religeons which follow the teachings of the bible, allow thier clergy to marry(and in some cases even allow women into the minestry) while the Catholics do not. Of course, of you want to be quite literal, it only says celebate, not unmarried.

So, what is the deal here? I do recall somewhere in the teachings, humans were told to "be fruitful and multiply". But the priests are not allowed to? Is there really a valid reasoning for this? I think there is room for interpretation and for the teachings to be brought into the 21st century without compromising them.

I mean, the "laws" and interpretations of what was written were probably fine for that time....but we are no longer there.Marie, I think I covered this in the earlier exchanges. The Catholic Church has always had a married priesthood, and still has one in the various Eastern rites. The celibate priesthood is fairly recent and in ONLY the Western or 'Latin' rite. The Eastern rites will ordain men who wish to remain unmarried, but bachelorhood is not required there. Once they have been ordained, however, they may not marry and if a married priest's wife dies, he may not remarry and remain an active priest. Of course, there are various practical reasons for this; for example, the complications of priests dating their parishioners are avoided. Still, this is merely a regulation and could be changed. Not likely any time soon though.

For that matter, there is no doctrinal reason why a married man could not be elected pope even today.

[William Ess]

Bronwen wrote: Marie, I think I covered this is the earlier exchanges. The Catholic Church has always had a married priesthood, and still has one in the various Eastern rites. The celibate priesthood is fairly recent and in ONLY the Western or 'Latin' rite. The Eastern rite will ordain men who wish to remain unmarried, but bachelorhood is not required. Once they have been ordained, however, they may not marry and if a married priest's wife dies, he may not remarry and remain an active priest. Of course, there are various practical reasons for this; for example, the complications of priests dating their parishioners are avoided. Still, this is merely a regulation and could be changed. Not likely any time soon though.

For that matter, there is no doctrinal reason why a married man could not be elected pope even today.


I believe there is some grey area in this respect. I have an idea that when the CoE accepted women into its priesthood about ten years ago, a number of married CoE clergy were allowed to 'transfer' to the RC church. Whether there were complications arising, I do not know, but I think the CoE stemmed any great defection by creating women-free sees which I believe still exist.

[twizzel]

Derryck wrote: :-6

November 27-2005:

The Debarring Of Homosexuals From The Catholic Church:

If the Roman Catholic Church's new decree, is to debar men and women who profess to be homosexuals from entrance to that institution, so let it be. Trying to change an institution that professes rigid conservatives policies for it's clergy, is like telling Christians that Jesus The Christ, have been found in default of that title.

For decades the Papacy under the former Pontiff-John Paul, has insisted that Homosexual life/lifestyle conflicts with the scriptures decree, that men or women having relations of a sexual nature with the same gender is wrong or evil, and those who indulge in such acts are headed for damnation.

Therefore, I cannot fathom why any rational thinking person/s would want to enter such an environment where he or she is not wanted, or would be scorned or frowned upon.

God did not say anywhere, (if I recall correctly), that all humans must be Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah Witnesses, Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Spiritualists, or Seventh Day Adventists.

So why should any organization purport the view, that homosexuals are violating God's desires for normal human existence?

And why should any Roman Catholic follower or believer, who truly believes in the God of Christians, allow themselves to be treated as though they were the scum of the earth, if they fail to comply with institutional policy or Cannon Laws?

I say if you truly believe in God, and understand who & what we are as his creation, then no institution or church organization can prevent you from receiving his blessings or mercy. Because all humans are imperfect, and have done wrong to others at some time or another.

Therefore, if this God is one who forgives his children, then The Roman Catholic Institution, also needs to be forgiven for their mis-interpretation of God's words and righteousness!

Om Shanti.

Derryck S. Griffith.

Educator & Advocate.
Normal is one man add one woman equals children back stabbing is niether normal nor desirable.

[William Ess]

With regard to Mr Griffiths' original posting - which I won't reproduce because of its length - I fear he may be missing the point that the Roman Catholic Church had to draw up a set of rules for the conduct of its priests and those rules had to be compiled by men using their best endeavours to interpret the scriptures. This same process applies to all the other mainstream churches that have appeared and indeed it is a very rare organisation that does not set rules for its members.

The churches have the right to set these ruiles and they do so in the belief that they are designed within the framework of what is taught in the scriptures.

It is important to understand that the RC church does not discriminate against homosexuals - it discriminates against homosexuality and there is an important difference between the two. (In fact, because of the celibacy rule, it also discriminates against heterosexuality insofar as its priesthood is concerned).

That said, the RC Church does not believe that homosexual union is a natural act but it is far from being alone in this view. So far as I know there is nothing to prevent a group of religious homosexuals from forming their own church.

[weber]

I had to go to the dictionary because I look at the word "debar" and to me that means the opposite of the verb "bar" - to stop someone from entering. Bar - to stop someone from entering.....debar....to de the bar and let them in. Why is this word debar being used? I figure I must be missing something.

[William Ess]

weber wrote: I had to go to the dictionary because I look at the word "debar" and to me that means the opposite of the verb "bar" - to stop someone from entering. Bar - to stop someone from entering.....debar....to de the bar and let them in. Why is this word debar being used? I figure I must be missing something.


They both mean much the same thing and can be regarded as interchangeable* although bar is the active, debar the formal passive. (Wotan barred Siegfried way with his spear. The committee voted to debar Smith from making an applciation).



*a rare thing given the strictures concerning the use of English...................!

[weber]

William Ess wrote: They both mean much the same thing and can be regarded as interchangeable* although bar is the active, debar the formal passive. (Wotan barred Siegfried way with his spear. The committee voted to debar Smith from making an applciation).



*a rare thing given the strictures concerning the use of English...................!


Thanks William

I figured thats what it was because there are a couple others that I know of. I do wish they would just use bar though. It seems much simpler. Then these things aren't ever simple are they:-6

[William Ess]

weber wrote: Thanks William

I figured thats what it was because there are a couple others that I know of. I do wish they would just use bar though. It seems much simpler. Then these things aren't ever simple are they:-6


It is the thousand nuances and shades of meaning that give the English language its magic. We have done with words what the Germans did with music and the result in both cases is priceless. How much poorer the world would be - and how much duller our lives - without The Merchant of Venice or Parsifal!

Bill

[Bronwen]

William Ess wrote: I believe there is some grey area in this respect. I have an idea that when the CoE accepted women into its priesthood about ten years ago, a number of married CoE clergy were allowed to 'transfer' to the RC church. Whether there were complications arising, I do not know, but I think the CoE stemmed any great defection by creating women-free sees which I believe still exist.Wm, I think that the ten year timeframe is about correct, perhaps actually a bit longer than ten years. I'm not sure, however, that this policy shift is the result of the Anglican communities' ordaining women. In any case, the important factor is that both the priest and his wife must wish to convert; the Church will not accept the priest at the cost of breaking up a family, at least that is my understanding. Clergy of other Protestant denoms, notably Lutherans, are, I am told, now also being accepted, and as I said in another thread, the next logical step would be opening the priesthood to married men who have been RC deacons in good standing for a number of years. That would be a big step toward a married Western priesthood and an excellent way of dealing with the current shortage of priests.

[Ted]

Within the Anglican Communion each bishop has ultimate authority in his or her diocese. It generally has been the practice to listen to the others and to try to work out a compromise.

However, of late some of the diocese have voted to admit and bless same sex unions and even to ordain homosexual priests. I has caused some strife in the Anglican church but those that have moved forward, if I can use that term, feel very strongly that they can no longer wait for the justice that all Christians deserve.

The same held true for the ordination of women. Some diocese still do not and will not accept ordained women. In the past all hell broke loose when they revised the Book of Common Prayer (The Missal in the RC church) but eventually they got over it though there are still a few who are members of the Prayer Book Society. The same held true for the ordenation of women. They are getting over that too. Some priests left because of personal conscience and that was their right.

Now we face the strongest opposition of all in the same sex issue. Will it split the Church? I hope not. I am hoping that they will get over it just as they have the others. On the other hand I am no longer personally willing to see the injustice being done to folks of other sexual orientations. We are to have a special synod next Just to deal with this issue. My wife is the delegate to this synod and while she will listen to all sides she will ultimate vote her conscience. We do discuss the issue but I do not ask nor try to influence her opinion. I am strongly behind this change and can only say it is about time. I am not gay but I see only injustice in the present situation.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is the titular head of the church but does not exercise the powers of the Pope. He must even ask permission to visity a synod just as the Primates must. The buck stops at the office of the diocesan synod office of the bishop. Anglicans would in general.have it no other way. We do not accept the infallibility of any human being regardless of office or position. God alone is infallible.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[William Ess]

Ted wrote: The Archbishop of Canterbury is the titular head of the church

Shalom

Ted:-6


This is incorrect. The titular head of the Church is the Queen.

[William Ess]

Ted wrote: However, of late some of the diocese have voted to admit and bless same sex unions and even to ordain homosexual priests. I has caused some strife in the Anglican church but those that have moved forward, if I can use that term, feel very strongly that they can no longer wait for the justice that all Christians deserve.

Now we face the strongest opposition of all in the same sex issue. Will it split the Church? I hope not. I am hoping that they will get over it just as they have the others. On the other hand I am no longer personally willing to see the injustice being done to folks of other sexual orientations. We are to have a special synod next Just to deal with this issue. My wife is the delegate to this synod and while she will listen to all sides she will ultimate vote her conscience. We do discuss the issue but I do not ask nor try to influence her opinion. I am strongly behind this change and can only say it is about time. I am not gay but I see only injustice in the present situation.



Shalom

Ted:-6


It seems to me to talk in terms of justice is to misunderstand the situation. It is not a question of justice or fair play but a matter of appointing the appropriate type pf people to a particular job. One would not talk of injustice if an airline stated it would not consider applications for pilots from the blind nor if a brewery discriminated against alcoholics when appointing pub landlords.

Similary, there is a very real question as to whether homosexuals are suitable people to work in an environment that holds the traditional family in such high regard.

The church has been modernising - dumbing down - for half a century but far from halting the decline in attendance it has had the effect of accelerating it.

Liberal kneejerking is all very fine and well but one has to look to the consequences.

[William Ess]

On the subject of the authority of Bishops, I always remember an incident that happened to a friend of mine shortly after his ordination circa 1950. He was summoned to attend the Bishop of Ely - No.3 in the hierarchy - to discuss the possibility of his being offered a living. As he meekly opened the door to the Bishop's room in anticipation of a detailed theological questioning, a cat scuttled in through his legs.

"My Lord," began my friend tremulously "May it please you, I, er - "

"Get out and take that bloody cat with you!"

He didn't get the living.

At about the same time, the Archbishop of Canterbury - it may have been Fisher - had a keen and ambitious chaplain who - God knows why - had a bee in his bonnet about the new science of ecumenicalism. Acccordingly he left it until the very last minute to announce the visit by the RC Bishop of Westminster (and a considerable entourage).

By all accounts the Catholics had just come into earshot when Canterbury understood what had been arranged. His response was abrupt and loud enough to rattle a few windows.

"Get that bloody Papist out of my palace!"

What happened to the Chaplain is not recorded.

[Ted]

William:-6

Technically you are correct on the head of the church. Perhaps it would have been better to use the term spiritual leader.

As for the best man or woman for the job I would agree. I would also say it makes no difference whether the individual is of the usual sexual orientation or of an alternate sexual orientation, It is absolutely about justice for all of God's children. Too many Christians worry about the sliver in someone elses eye when they should be dealing with the plank in their own.

As far as the "traditional family goes" that disappeared some time ago. We now have many single parent families. The arguments that homosexuality spells the end of the traditional family is nonsense. It says absolutely nothing about the traditional family. I fail to see how 10% of the population is going to destroy the traditional family which no longer exists anyway.

That some Archbishop of Canterbury referred to the RC Bishop as a papist in the way he did it regretable and hardly a Christian response.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[William Ess]

Ted wrote: William:-6



As far as the "traditional family goes" that disappeared some time ago. We now have many single parent families. The arguments that homosexuality spells the end of the traditional family is nonsense. It says absolutely nothing about the traditional family. I fail to see how 10% of the population is going to destroy the traditional family which no longer exists anyway.



Shalom

Ted:-6


The ratio of homosexuals to normal people is 1%, not 10%. The stonewall organisation commissioned their own census some years ago to demonstrate that the proportion was actually higher than 10% and were somewhat embarrassed by the result.

It is a very vociferous minority with influence well out of proportion to their numbers. They are very well represented in the entertainment, media, TV especially and politics.

I cannot see how the traditional family can in any way be compatible with homosexuality and although laxity in one form or another has seen an increase in single-parent families, in my experience the nuclear family is still alive and well in most parts of the western world.

[Bronwen]

Ted wrote: We do not accept the infallibility of any human being regardless of office or position. God alone is infallible.Teddy, you are falling back into your old habits here.

You are well aware that 'papal infallibility' does not imply that the MAN is infallible, but that the Church believes that the Holy Spirit guides it and keeps it from error in the formulation of dogma. And the HS was God the last time I checked.

[William Ess]

Bronwen wrote: Teddy, you are falling back into your old habits here.

You are well aware that 'papal infallibility' does not imply that the MAN is infallible, but that the Church believes that the Holy Spirit guides it and keeps it from error in the formulation of dogma. And the HS was God the last time I checked.


The doctrine of papal infallibility may be a highly ingenious way of preventing argument within the guiding councils of the Vatican but to claim that an individual born of woman can speak - even under limited circumstances - with the authority of God is surely the last word in presumption.

When was the last time it was done?

[Bronwen]

William Ess wrote: 1. The doctrine of papal infallibility may be a highly ingenious way of preventing argument within the guiding councils of the Vatican

2. ...but to claim that an individual born of woman can speak - even under limited circumstances - with the authority of God is surely the last word in presumption.

3. When was the last time it was done?1. Wm, I think you have it bass ackwards, but for you that is not unusual. FIRST comes lengthy discussion and study, sometimes YEARS of it, by the pope and all of the other bishops. THEN comes the pronouncement of dogma.

2. What other kind of individual is there? You may know something I don't. You are confusing presumption with faith. Is it presumption or faith to believe that a Man was born of a virgin, died, and rose from the dead three days later? That forty days later He ascended to heaven from the top of a mountain and sits at God's right hand? That ten days after that He sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church? Your mindset seems to be that things you personally believe are the products of faith and those that you reject are presumptious. At least that's what I presume.

3. A long time ago. Such pronouncements are rarely necessary, as the Chruch's teachings today are not much different than in Christianity's early centuries. From time to time, however, something may need to be defined more precisely or clearly.

There is no argument, however, that it is always the pope who makes the actual pronouncement. That is a part of his job that cannot be delegated.

[William Ess]

Bronwen wrote: 1. Wm, I think you have it bass ackwards, but for you that is not unusual. FIRST comes lengthy discussion and study, sometimes YEARS of it, by the pope and all of the other bishops. THEN comes the pronouncement of dogma.

2. What other kind of individual is there? You may know something I don't. You are confusing presumption with faith. Is it presumption or faith to believe that a Man was born of a virgin, died, and rose from the dead three days later? That forty days later He ascended to heaven from the top of a mountain and sits at God's right hand? That ten days after that He sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church? Your mindset seems to be that things you personally believe are the products of faith and those that you reject are presumptious. At least that's what I presume.

3. A long time ago. Such pronouncements are rarely necessary, as the Chruch's teachings today are not much different than in Christianity's early centuries. From time to time, however, something may need to be defined more precisely or clearly.




The last instance of papal infallibility cannot have been that long ago since the infallibility was only ascribed to the Pontiff as recently as 1870 and was hotly contested by many of the RC Bishops of the day. Did it not cause something of a schism in the church?



There is a wide difference between presumption and faith. One is rational the other is not.

[Ted]

Bronwen:-6

There was no intent there to slight anyone. It was just a statement that I made to clarify the point.

However, that being said, thanks for clearing that up. The Anglican Church believes that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the church but we do not just rely on the bishops. We rely on the church as a committed group of people who are themselves guided by the Holy Spirit. In other words all Christians within the Anglican communion have a say and not just the bishop(s).

Shalom

Ted

[Bronwen]

William Ess wrote: 1. The last instance of papal infallibility cannot have been that long ago since the infallibility was only ascribed to the Pontiff as recently as 1870 and was hotly contested by many of the RC Bishops of the day. Did it not cause something of a schism in the church?

2. There is a wide difference between presumption and faith. One is rational the other is not.1. Thank you for mentioning that, because it reinforces my point. That the HS guides the Church in matters of dogma has always been a matter of faith. What occurred in 1870 was just what I described in the previous post, an attempt to define dogma more clearly and precisely. There is nothing wrong with bishops disagreeing on such things; indeed, that is part of their job. The important thing to remember is that the infallibility is ascribed not to the pope as a person, but rather to the process over which he presides.

You seemed to be implying that the pope uses his authority in such cases to further his personal agenda, as you say, 'preventing argument'. That is not the case at all, quite the opposite. Even in the canonization of saints, a learned scholar is always appointed to argue AGAINST canonization. He is known as 'the devil's advocate', hence the popular phrase.

2. Well, you didn't say which is which, but OK. In any case, I think that there is some overlapping of the terms, at least in popular usage. I PRESUME that the planet Neptue exists even though I have never been there not even seen it. I have FAITH that God exists and sanctifies me because I have always felt His presence in my life. If that's what you mean then I agree, but doesn't that defeat your own example, that it is the 'last word in presumption' that the Church defines doctrine infallibly? That seems more like faith to me.

[Ted]

Bronwen:-6

You have clarified the issue well for me. It would seem that the Anglican Church has a similar process but stops at the desk of the diocesan bishop rather than in some distant office.

I have one question just for clarification. Are there any lay people involved in such decisions?

Shalom

Ted:-6

[William Ess]

Bronwen wrote: You seemed to be implying that the pope uses his authority in such cases to further his personal agenda, as you say, 'preventing argument'. That is not the case at all, quite the opposite. Even in the canonization of saints, a learned scholar is always appointed to argue AGAINST canonization. He is known as 'the devil's advocate', hence the popular phrase..


Not really but in an emotive business such as the Church, it would be surprising if the Pope did not have strong views on certain issues - private agenda, if you wish - and in the final analysis the facility of Papal Infallibility even if not used explicitly must carry some weight in terms of dampening opposition.

I am not sure I could come to accept the doctrine of Papal Infallibility if push came to shove but it must be a very effective tool in terms of maintaining discipline amongst the Bishops and Cardinals.

[Bryn Mawr]

Ted wrote:

Now we face the strongest opposition of all in the same sex issue. Will it split the Church? I hope not. I am hoping that they will get over it just as they have the others. On the other hand I am no longer personally willing to see the injustice being done to folks of other sexual orientations. We are to have a special synod next Just to deal with this issue. My wife is the delegate to this synod and while she will listen to all sides she will ultimate vote her conscience. We do discuss the issue but I do not ask nor try to influence her opinion. I am strongly behind this change and can only say it is about time. I am not gay but I see only injustice in the present situation.




The argument I most ofter see is the condemnation of homosexuallity in the Bible.

Not being good enough with search engines I cannot find the relevant verses to know what is actually said but, if the Bible truely says that homosexuallity is wrong in the eyes of God then it would not be a question of injustice but a question of scripture.

Could you enlighten me as to the scriptural position or lack of it?

If there is no such position then the Church can have no argument for supporting the current policy.

[weber]

Bryn Mawr wrote: The argument I most ofter see is the condemnation of homosexuallity in the Bible.

Not being good enough with search engines I cannot find the relevant verses to know what is actually said but, if the Bible truely says that homosexuallity is wrong in the eyes of God then it would not be a question of injustice but a question of scripture.

Could you enlighten me as to the scriptural position or lack of it?

If there is no such position then the Church can have no argument for supporting the current policy.


This is not the greatest search engine Bryn, but it is what I have for now. I am looking for a better one. This is in my favorites/

http://www.gospelway.com/versref.htm#J What you are looking for is there.