Ah OK. Either way his friend is wrong, as you point out. And besides, other religions such as Islam have a great deal of respect for Christ as a prophet, even if they don’t recognise him as the son of God. So the wearing of a cross is not exclusively the domain of one particular branch of Christians/fundamentalists/whatever.
Or you could just use my favourite - “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” (John 8:7?).
I think the birth control business has been answered pretty comprehensively – the key lement is that sex acts must always be open to the possibility of new life, because that is natural… indeed, as many Catholics’ large families can testify to, the sex act is always open to the possibility of the transmission of new life! 
The prohibition against contraception is that it’s seen as unnaturally interfering with new life; the rhythm method is merely a couple deciding when they want to make love.
The good news – and I say this as the father of a seven-week-old baby – is that the rhythm metohd these days is considerably more reliable than it was a generation ago. Fertility science has advanced to the point that women who have trouble getting pregnant can take their basal temperature every morning, and accurately tell when they’re ovulating. Obviously, this informstion can also be used for the reverse purpose.
As to the women as priests issue… it’s important to note that this is not a matter of doctrine, or faith, but one of church custom. As such, it is subject to change somewhere down the line. This is also true of the prohibition against priests’ marrying – to which there are already several recognized exceptions.
Pope John Paul II has said that he does not not feel he has the authority to permit women to be priests, and as rationale, he points to the fact that while there were several women mentioned in the Gospels along with the Apostles, no woman was an Apostle. When Jesus choses those to form the Church, then, he chose only men.
Of course, that society was quite different from our own. So the question then becomes, “Did Jesus choose only men based on the socirty of the time, or did He mean for only men to hold the priesthood?” Right now, the best thinking of the Church is that the latter is true. Future generations may revist that decision - but that’s the rationale that drives the current state of affairs.
In an effort to forestall any commentary about “flexible truth,” I’ll point out that there is a clear and delineated difference between matters of practice and matters of faith and doctrine. The Pope could, tomorrow, decree that henceforth, priests will celebrate Mass in tuxedos, complete with top hats and tails. The whole complicated and traditional vestments business is merely a matter of practice. The tuxedo thing, in my view, would be foolish, but not contrary to previous Church teachings.
No Pope will ever teach that the Eucharist is merely symbolic. The Real Presence of Christ is a matter of doctrine, and unchangeable.
Just by way of example…
- Rick
IIRC priests were allowed to marry in the past, and somehow that changed over time…is this not right?
GIGObuster your question seems to have gotten lost in the fray here:
My opinion on the whole thing is that I don’t know. I’m not sure that the Pope’s Parkinsons is really affecting his job performance in any way, other than his ceremonial functions. His mind is still as sharp as ever, and that’s what’s really important to his main function as figuring out practices/doctrine/philosophy, etc. So I don’t think that he should abdicate unless he feels that he can’t handle it anymore, which he doesn’t feel yet apparently.
As for line of succession if the Pope is bed-ridden…I don’t know. AFAIK, there is no line of succession precedent unless the Pope dies. I would guess that the College of Cardinals would choose an interim from among them, but I don’t think they have the power to force a Pope to step down without his consent. But again, I really don’t know.
From the Catechism:
As I understand it, masturbation is considered a mortal sin. Soo, what I am asking of devout Catholics is…um, do you really buy that? Do you consider masturbation a “gravely disordered action”, one that cuts you off from God, one that requires you to have sacramental absolution before you can take communion, and you’ll go straight to Hell, do not pass go, if a safe falls on your head while you’re jerking off?*
*[sub]“Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’”[/sub]
raises hand as ex-altar boy
OK folks I am reading this thread and a couple of points that were brought up I’d like to clear a little. first of all.
Neurotik
Begging your pardon here, but most preists I know are quite wealthy and live in very nice rectories. I do not think having a family or a wife would hinder any money situation what-so-ever. Also the Catholic church is not hurting for money at all, I am not sure if this is true but isn’t the Catholic church the richest church/religion?
As far as the OP Martinez I have to completely sympathize with your situation. Case in point…My closest friend was raised Christian Fundementalist. His Mother was a die hard fundementalist and really made his adolescence a living hell. Which in turn made him reject the church and turn his back on organized religion. Anyway, one day during a birthday party one of my friends mothers die hard Christian friends stood up and said “…well I used to be a Catholic but then I became a Christian…”
I was sitting clear across the room and in a completely different conversation and my head turned and I started to immediately fume. I shouted “excuse me!!!” and to make a long story short I got into a quite heated argument with this woman until I finally said that she would never and could never understand a God that wanted his followers to follow out of love and not fear. At that point my friends mother walked into the room and calmed her friend down. And I continued my conversation with another buddy. But fundementally speaking the Catholic Church will probably never be considered Christians thru the eyes of the die hards. Personally, I could give a rats ass.
As far as women in the church and what they may be able to bring as a preist, I think they would be invaluable in the Catholic church. Look at the Episcople(sp?) church, or in other words the ‘easy mans Catholic’ Preists can marry and women can preach. Rock on. I have been to a couple masses and they are pretty interesting. They still have the lords prayor, the Apostles Creed and such, but they also leave the church free of sin which is a little weird. No confession. Well I will write more later…Good thread.
Another little tid bit spurred my Gaudere
I remember being told in Catechism that you could get pregnant through Jeans. All in an effort to promote abstinence.
*BUHAAAHAHAHHHHAAA HAH AHAHHAAA…
I laughed soo hard when I heard this I think the nun kicked me out of class for the day. and that was 15 years ago.
Also Neurotik I understand that what I quoted from you above was just an opinion. It came across a little different when I look back at it.
The pope can abdicate if he wishes. (It is not considered “proper” and the couple who have done it have been criticized for it, but there is no rule to prohibit it.)
The pope cannot be forced to abdicate unless he is caught preaching heresy. (I’m not sure that a pope may be forced out even for moral turpitude–but there aren’t that many geezers getting in that sort of trouble, these days.)
There were several “popes” who were forced out during the various schisms, but they were generally considered to have been “pretenders to the throne” and are recorded as anti-popes.
I doubt that Pope John Paul II will resign. All the indications are that he is still pretty sharp, mentally. Periodic reports of his “ravaged” health are routinely debunked. Modern medicine may, indeed, be close to creating a situation where a failing pope might be kept alive beyond the point where he can handle his duties, but it has not happened yet and I suspect that when it does happen (and not necessarily with JP II), it will be a big issue with which the Curia and College of Cardinals will wrestle right up until the moment the poor guy dies, anyway.
You must live in a pretty upscale neighborhood. There are, indeed, priests who are rather well off, and having housing provided free certainly relieves a huge financial obligation. However, priests are not paid extravagantly. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics notes that the pay ranges from $12,936 per year in 1998 to $15,483, with the “in kind” services (housing, etc.) raising the effective rate to $30,713. Not poverty, but hardly in the range of wealthy. Throwing a wife and kids into that mix (and coming up with additional in-kind services–you aren’t going to put two or more families into a single rectory) would increase the current outlay for priests by quite a bit.
As to the wealth of the RCC, most of it is tied up in structures and art. It does not have some huge cash flow that they tap into for any little project that comes along, and they would certainly be strapped, in the U.S., if they suddenly began paying for a wife and 2.3 kids (or 5.7 kids since they’re Catholic) for each priest.
Martinez,
I left the Catholic Church more than 20 years ago, but I keep a soft spot in my heart for it (unlike many former Catholics.)
You won’t win on logic, or even quoting from the Bible. I probably wouldn’t even dignify the argument, but if you need to respond, try this:
“I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior. Do you?”
Of course your co-worker will say yes.
“Then it seems to me we’re both Christians.”
Repeat as needed. Do not get sucked into interpretations about who’s the Antichrist or what Revelations says, or for that matter, which Gospel is more accurate.
If I understand the Fundamentalist dogma correctly, it boils down to a couple of simple precepts.
- Jesus is our Lord and savior. Those of us who accept Him are saved.
- No one can interpret God’s word (i.e., the Bible) for me.
If it gets really nasty, you might ask your co-worker why he’s allowing Jack Chick to interpret the Bible for him.
That’s true – the rule that priests have to be celibate was instituted in the eleventh century, as part of the Gregorian reform, which was nominally about lay investiture (the ability of secular authorities to hand out ecclesiastical offices) but really the result of an extensive conflict over who speaks for God on earth (popes or kings). To make a very long story short, the pope won. As a result, there were a lot of changes made within the Church, and the requirement that priests remain celibate was one of these.
Personally, I’m all for allowing priests to marry (in theory, without considering the financial question), and I’m definitely in favor of the ordination of women. I’m not really convinced by the argument against it. (I read one essay that addressed the “historical context” argument by saying that polytheist religions had priestesses at the time, so Jesus could have chosen women as apostles if he’d intended for women to be priests – but again, I don’t buy this argument as it doesn’t seem to have much to do with the culture in which he himself lived. Which all leads to the question posed in Jesus Christ Superstar: “Why’d you choose such a backward time and such a strange land?”)
This may seem a dumb question from a dumb hick, but…
Do Catholics (I guess I mean practicing, convinced in the dogma Catholics) believe that the Pope is the voice of God? Or is it closer to, well, he’s more learned in bible study so may or does know more than the average Joe?
If the answer is a, please expect a reply
thx
S
Long story short, a co-worker just stopped by and told me that was a troll. If so, I apoligize.
Rephrased question: Why does the Pope have more say than anyone else on what dogma is or isn’t? Is it because is more learned than both average Joe’s AND the Cardinals that vote him into “office”? Or is it because he has something special about him that the Cardinal’s recognize? If so, is that “something special” an actual ‘closer to God’ thing, or what?
Honestly, I do want to understand, I’m not trying to argue here. Thanks,
S
theretsof, Catholics believe that there are times when the Pope may speak infalliably - that is, when he is directly guided by the Holy Spirit. So, in a stretching sort of sense, you could say that the Pope is the voice of God.
But it’s not on a 24x7 basis. If the Pope tell you he knows who the 2002 World Series winner will be, you may safely lay a bet the other way; the Pope has no particular ability to read the future.
When the Pope annouces that he is definitively proclaiming a doctrine of faith or morals, as the successor to Peter, then he is speaking ex cathedra - and infalliably. This doesn’t happen very often - the last such statement was from Pope Pius XII fifty-one years ago, when he said that Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven without first dying.
The Pope - and the bishops - also speak infalliably whenever they teach what the Church has always taught. This is the Magisterium, or teaching authority, of the church, and it exists to “…preserve God’s people from deviations and defections, and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error” (CatechismNo. 890).
tomndebb is, as usual, right on the mark concerning abdication, and priests’ salaries. Priests simply do not make a lot of money, Phlosphr. They may live in nice rectories, I grant, but these are the property of the parish, not the priest. Diocesean priests are subject to the assignments that the bishop gives them, and may move from a “nice” rectory to a not-so-nice one at any time.
Even the most sparse rectories and parishes in my area - the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia - are palatial compared to conditions for priests in poorer areas. There are priests in the Dominican Republic who depend on the kindness of their parishoners to eat every day.
The Church itself is not hurting for money, it’s true, although much of what comes in goes right out again, in the form of charitable donations and charitable works. Again here in the Diocese of Arlington, we have Catholic Charities, a diocese-owned and operated group that funds millions of dollars to various causes. But the individual priests are most certainly not wealthy.
That said, i do know one priest who is quite well-off – but it’s the result of a family trust fund that pays him a monthly stipend, not as a result of his priests’ salary – which, incidentally, he donates back to the Church. He’s also the only priest I know with kids … he has three grown children. When his wife died, he decided to become a priest.
Obviously, this is not a typical portrait of a Roman Catholic priest!
- Rick
In Catholic tradition, the foundation for the office of the pope is found primarily in Matthew 16:13-20. Here Jesus asked the question, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” The apostles responded, “Some say John the Baptizer, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” Our Lord then turned to them and point-blank asked them, “And you, who do you say that I am?”
Peter, still officially known as Simon, replied, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord recognized that this answer was grace-motivated: “No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”
Because of this response, Our Lord said to Peter first, “You are ‘Rock,’ and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The name change itself from Simon to Peter indicates the apostle being called to a special role of leadership; recall how Abram’s name was changed to Abraham, or Jacob’s to Israel, or Saul’s to Paul when each of them was called to assume a special role of leadership among God’s people.
Catholics believe that this was indicative of Jesus’ intention for Peter - and other to follow him as successor - to lead the Church here on Earth that Jesus was leaving them to build.
The pope’s primacy in the Church, then, comes from the vision that he is the successor of Peter. Indeed, the Pope is said to sit “on the throne of Peter,” and one of his titles is “Successor of Peter.”
- Rick
The pope is not considered more knowledgable than everyone else. He is not even considered to be closer to God than anyone, particularly.
The pope, as head of the Church, is considered to be inspired by the Holy Spirit on those occasions when he tackles a specific issue regarding the faith and morals of the Church. On those occasions, the doctrine of infallibility says that the Spirit will guide him to make the correct choice. In order to invoke infallibility, the pope must declare that he is speaking on the issue from his seat of office (ex cathedra).
Even within the Church, that is a mildly contested belief. The declaration of Papal Infallibility was only formally proclaimed in 1869 at the First Vatican Council. (The tradition is older, but is not firmly rooted in the early church.) There have only been two Infallibly Proclaimed doctrines: that Mary was born without Original Sin and that Mary was assumed ino Heaven without dying and being buried.
There are periodic suggestions by scholars that the doctrine of infallibility be “revisited” in order to “clarify” what it means. As long as no pope comes out and declares something that appears to be heresy as infallibly true, we’re probably not going to open up that nasty litle discussion, formally.
Getting past infallibility, the general notion that the Holy Spirit guides the Church through the pope is held. That is seen in the encyclicals and bulls that are issued to address theological points or social concerns. They are given great consideration and are considered to be the guides to the church in the world, but they can be “clarified” by later “understandings” without harming the teachings of the church. They are rarely (read never) dashed off by the pope the night before they are promulgated. For most of them, the pope perceives and area that needs to be addressed and selects a theologian (or several) whose specialty is that area of doctrine to draft a document. The pope then reviews the document and ensures that the theologian has not wandered off into idle speculation.
[ In preview, I see that Bricker has already adressed this, but it took too long to type for me to kill it, now. ]
Bricker-
“When the Pope annouces that he is definitively proclaiming a doctrine of faith or morals, as the successor to Peter, then he is speaking ex cathedra - and infalliably. This doesn’t happen very often - the last such statement was from Pope Pius XII fifty-one years ago, when he said that Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven without first dying.”
Is it assumed that God ‘spoke’ (for lack of a better word) to Pope Pius XII and ‘told’ him that Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven w/o first dying? And, is it a Catholic’s duty to take this as seriously as anything Peter said?
Good answers, Bricker.
The Pope is not necessarily the smartest person in the world when it comes to interpreting the Bible, just as the President of the United States is not necessarily the smartest man in the country. Rather, he is the person chosen by the cardinals (who in turn, are inspired by God) to lead Catholics.
The current Pope, as well as Pope John XXIII, were widely seen as charismatic leaders – “pastoral” – Popes who could touch people emotionally. Pope Pius XII and Pope Paul VI were regarded more as “administrative” (or if you wish, bureaucratic) and diplomatic figures who would wisely steward the Church. Not much different from any process of choosing a leader, frankly.
Theretsof, I just saw your latest post. As to why the Pope has more say than the average Joe Catholic (or even the average Cardinal Joe Catholic), he was elected to head the Church, and it’s his job to run the thing. Catholics believe the Pope receives his authority in an unbroken line of succession from Peter, so yes, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, it’s assumed to have the same weight as if Peter said it.
kunilou,
just curious, why did you leave the church? I have heard stories about a particular priest pissing people off.or marrying a non catholic and converting. But I have never heard of somebody that without qualifying it.
the women priest thing is coming but I dont know how. I went to a Epistopal service that had women and it just didnt seem right. I guess after a while I would get used to it. I see women as deacons as a solution to the current problem of shortage of priest. the deacons can perform about half the sacraments so they can take a lot of work off the priest’s shoulders.
the bit about rich priest cracked me up. talk about ignorance. I have seen a hundred priest and never a rich one. but I guess they could have asked “all rabbis are rich, so why wouldn’t a man become a rabbi instead of a priest since they make more money and they can marry. there is that circumcism thing though.”
Liberal Episcopalian (Anglican) with a fair smattering of Catholic theology here.
Just for the record, what is not supposed to be changed according to Catholic doctrine is Dogma and Tradition (note the capital letters). “Tradition” in this sense is very specifically defined (and I don’t want to drag out the hoary details) but does not refer to custom but to specific areas of Catholic doctrine and practice that are not defined as dogmas.
The rule prescribing clerical celibacy is not Tradition, but a law of the Roman Rite, and subject to superseding by authority. It was imposed, so I understand, to prevent nepotism, in response to late Roman Empire situations where the “cure” (right to be the parish priest and collect the revenues of the parish) was being handed down by inheritance from father to son. It does not apply to Eastern Rites priests (maybe 10% of Catholicism) and has within the last 30 years been superseded in quite specific instances, including several in America, where married priests of other communions have converted to Catholicism. There are a few married Catholic priests who were Anglicans in Missouri, and I believe numerous others.
What is forbidden in all of Catholicism, and I believe this is capital-T Tradition, is for a priest not married at the time (single or widower) to marry after ordination, and for a married priest to become a bishop.
Tom~ should be along to correct any errors I may have made here.