A quest to hunt down and remove gays from RC seminaries

[Tenar]

@Excalibre

Technically, “celibacy” simply refers to not getting married, and obviously most Catholic priests are celibate. It’s nonsense to speak of non-celibate gays in the context of the Catholic Church, because the Church doesn’t recognize gay marriage. At any rate, it seems strange to insist that priestly celibacy is somehow essential to being Catholic, as not only are married priests who convert from other faiths allowed into the Latin Church, but Eastern Rite Catholics (as with most Eastern Christians) permit priests to marry. These are small exceptions, numerically, but still there are plenty of married Catholic Priests.

Actually, my friend L. told me that this was the very rationale used by his former boyfriend (a Catholic priest) and his many cohorts to justify their sexual and romantic activities.

Not that I’m in favor of hypocrisy, but I kind of enjoyed knowing that somebody was using the Church’s obsession with rules to their advantage.

[Muffin]

@Arianne aka Hey You!

My point is not whether they have the facts correct or not.

How unfortunate.

[Dr.Rieux]

[QUOTE=jayjay]
Gee…we’re an ancient institution that has experienced an alarming decline in numbers for the priesthood and all areas of religious (the RC term for people who take various vows in service to the church), so let’s start a witch hunt so we can decline those numbers even further!

[QUOTE]

[Hijack]
And our armed services make the same stupid mistake. :rolleyes:
[/Hijack]

[monavis]

Didn’t Saint Paul say it was better for a man not to touch a woman and to live as he did,but if one couldn’t control one’s self it was better to marry than to burn?

I would say that was not a glowing statement about marriage.

Monavis

[Otto]

@monavis

Didn’t Saint Paul say it was better for a man not to touch a woman and to live as he did,but if one couldn’t control one’s self it was better to marry than to burn?

I would say that was not a glowing statement about marriage.

Yes, but as I understand it, Paul believed that Jesus would return within his, Paul’s, lifetime. So the suggestion not to marry was predicated on a wildly false assumption (well, two, if you include the divinity of Jesus).

[clairobscur]

@Muffin

The last pargeraph of the first section that I cited makes the connection.

It makes the connection, but it’s not a statement by some official of the RCC. It seems it has been written by the journalist to provide context.

[Muffin]

@clairobscur

It makes the connection, but it’s not a statement by some official of the RCC. It seems it has been written by the journalist to provide context.

Have good read through the full article in the National Catholic Register: http://www.ncregister.com/articulo.php?artkod=NTU=

[SteveG1]

@tomndebb

Actually, you are mistaken regarding the how long celibacy has been in the church and you have the claims about wealth and power a bit confused, as noted in this post. Celibacy as a rule has never been presented as the Word of God (either with or without reverb). (Although, it should also be noted that the RCC is hardly a sola scriptura institution, anyway.) It has always been a matter of church discpline. Some of the earliest champions of celibacy (going back long before the Middle Ages and even before Nicaea,) argued that celibacy was an aid to spiritual development and service to the community. Those ideas are maintained in current church teachings, but they preceded the “wealth and power” issue by some 900 years and there is no claim that celibacy is biblically based (other than as a recognition of sacrifice).

Feel free to disagree with the church on any issue, but please get the facts straight so that any later discussion is not carried out under incorrect assumptions.

Looking at the referenced post, it reads as if chastity, celibacy and refraining from marriage were encouraged to eliminate distraction, but not necessarily required as they are now. Am I reading it correctly? Consider too, that SOME people (not all) treat the writings of Paul almost as if they were the direct word of God. Whether they follow them completely, or only apply the parts that suit them to other people is a whole 'nother debate.

[tomndebb]

@SteveG1

Looking at the referenced post, it reads as if chastity, celibacy and refraining from marriage were encouraged to eliminate distraction, but not necessarily required as they are now. Am I reading it correctly? Consider too, that SOME people (not all) treat the writings of Paul almost as if they were the direct word of God. Whether they follow them completely, or only apply the parts that suit them to other people is a whole 'nother debate.

The (Western) church-wide imposition of mandatory celibacy was only implemented after 1070. However, different diocese and provinces had imposed mandatory celibacy earlier (such as the synod at Elvira Spain, in 300). Certainly, the church looks to the words of Paul when considering the issues of chastity and includes them in discussions of celibacy for priests. My point was only that the Church does not claim that priestly celibacy is ordered by God and found in Scripture. Reasons to consider it are found in various Scriptural passages, but it is, ultimately, simply a discipline of the Church, (one that is not imposed by Rome on the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, for example).

[SteveG1]

@tomndebb

The (Western) church-wide imposition of mandatory celibacy was only implemented after 1070. However, different diocese and provinces had imposed mandatory celibacy earlier (such as the synod at Elvira Spain, in 300). Certainly, the church looks to the words of Paul when considering the issues of chastity and includes them in discussions of celibacy for priests. My point was only that the Church does not claim that priestly celibacy is ordered by God and found in Scripture. Reasons to consider it are found in various Scriptural passages, but it is, ultimately, simply a discipline of the Church, (one that is not imposed by Rome on the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, for example).

Understood. I stand corrected, and thanks for the info. Such are the risks when I try to rely on memory.