I get it now: Catholicism, in its entirety, is faulty because…you think so. Great, thanks for shedding light on this complicated topic.
And, of course, this is not Catholic bashing. No stereotyping in here at all, no broad and unsupported statements. Catholicism, well, it’s just all bad, that’s all! Why didn’t I see it before? It IS “ridiculous and despicable”! All of it, no need to nitpick!
“I respect the believers, they’re just idiots”–nice way to wrap it up.
Next time perhaps you can actually argue a specific point. Dropping by to vent your anti-Catholic bigotry is perhaps therapeutic for you, but it doesn’t really contribute much to the debate.
Let me help. The OP asked why catholic priests were celibate, and I answered the question. I also explained that to look for ‘reason’ behind rules which were not based on reason is rather futile, which it is. I don’t know about ‘redeeming value’, but I thought answering questions and expressing informed points of view was kind of the point around here? And I am very informed about catholicism.
Self-serving mis-quotation, and the setting up of ‘straw man’ arguments, make for poor debate. I did not say catholicism “is faulty”, and in any case it is not entirely clear what such a statement would mean. Nor did I base my argument on “because I say so”. I said that the celibacy requirement, like much of catholic theology, was not built on sound reasoning, and it isn’t. It is built on arbitrary articles of faith, unsupported by any reasoning whatsoever.
This is why the church is able to change ts mind whenever it wants to - since there is no good reason for policy X in the first place, there can be no good argument against its reversal or the adoption of policy not-X. Cremation of the dead was taught as against the will of god pre-1960s, then suddenly it was allowed. For the communicant to touch the communion wafer with the hand was wrong, sinful etc. before some date in the late 1960s, and then it was the correct practice. And if we want to go further back… the selling of indulgences? The physical punishment and death of heretics? The persecution of Galileo? The modern-day teaching of homosexuality as sinful and against the will of god? The ban on women priests?
My obsevations are relevant to the original post, which enquired about the ‘why’ supporting a particular catholic article of faith. It is trivial to show that catholic teaching is not based on a ‘why’ at all.
Or do you have some reasons for priestly celibacy, Bob Cos, that you can share with us here?
One final point of interest. I was not arguing from the “because I say so” point of view, but it is rich indeed for any catholic to attack this stance when the Papal Doctrine of Infallibility, which I do understand, is essentially that self-same assertion… “because I say so”… elevated to the position of an article of faith which catholics are required to believe in!
Correct. It is not. I was explicating the nature of catholic dogma, from first-hand experience of its methods, not attacking those who have been successfully conditioned to accept it. I am aware that are trying to adopt a sarcastic tone. This is poor cloth from which to weave a respectable case.
Correct, no stereotyping. Stereotyping involves prejudicial assumption applied to a broadly labelled group e.g. all women or all Americans.
“Pre-judicial”, by way of clarification, means a judgement formed before one has the benefit of evidence or experience. My observations are based on 25 years first-hand experience. Therefore they are not prejudicial.
And I have made no comments at all about catholics, only about catholicism and the way it operates.
**
More self-serving paraphrasing. Do you know how to use the ‘quote’ facility on this board? It might assist you to quote accurately, assuming this possibility interests you. I stand by the accurate parts of your otherwise misleading paraphrase -‘ridiculous’ and ‘despicable’. Ridiculous mean ‘susceptible to ridicule’, which is true of much catholic dogma. I can give examples if you want, although you are doing a fine job all by yourself. As for ‘despicable’ - it is very despicable to take young infant children, at an age when they have no intellectual defences, and to fill their heads with irrational superstitious nonsense, and to chastise them for attempting any rational inquiry as to the validity of these teachings, and to teach that even questioning the superstitions is a weakness (of faith) or sinful.
**
You know, using the ‘quote’ button is really not that hard, Bob Cos, and quoting accurately might win more respect for your position. I did not use the word ‘idiot’ or question anyone’s intelligence. I would be the first to acknowledge that one can be highly intelligent and catholic. What I did say was that I have sympathy for all those minds infected with the catholic virus, and I have.
Make your mind up. Are you interested in rational debate, or do you prefer irrational supposition which one is expected to accept on faith?
At the risk of over-indulging your inability to read or paraphrase accurately, it would be bigotry if it were hated based on ignorance. I have no hatred of catholics; I have never expressed any hatred for them and I never will. And my observations are informed, not ignorant.
It is ironic for anyone professing catholic beliefs to rail against perceived ‘bigotry’ and ‘prejudice’. Catholicism is a model of bigotry, as anyone aware of the catholic dogma pertaining to homosexuality, or the ordination of women priests, will be well aware.
Ianzin, that could be applied to any number of religions, not just Catholithism.
Gee, you know, not ALL Catholics believe the same thing, and not all priests are pedophiles, or nasty. I knew some wonderful priests and nuns. I know of a very devout, very irreverant and funny Capisian (sp?) friar. Father Scott. This guy had us rolling in the aisles in church at my parents’ 25th anniversary Mass.
Maybe I like the religion. I don’t always agree with the Church, but I like the religion.
My only response to the trolls will be to note that even if something is irrational doesn’t mean it has no reason. The people in Jonestown may have been pretty irrational, but they must have thought they had a good reason for what they did. Heck, Republicans probably think they have good reasons for their beliefs and actions, too! Even if the RCC were as bad as ianzin thinks, there would still be a reason for the decisions! Heck, the pope heard voices one day, would be a reason. At least blessedwolf thinks (and I use the term loosely) that lust for power is the reason for the decision, as well as everything else in the Church. To assert that anything simply has no reason is to simply declare your surrender in fight against ignorance.
And just for the record, for those not paying close enough attention, I don’t really think the RCC is anywhere close to as bad as Republicanism. I am a Christian. Protestant, true, but with the highest possible respect for Catholicism. The Vatican, on the other hand…
Now to answer a couple of real questions:
As far as anyone knows, yes, absolutely. The Bible never mentions anything that would indicate otherwise, and a wife isn’t exactly the sort of thing you would expect the Gospel writers to leave out. Nor would a mistress (or mister, for that matter) be likely to have been ignored by his enemies, and we’d expect at least something of a reply in the Christian sources we have, if not a direct accusation. Every Christian denomination with which I am familiar takes it for granted that Christ was entirely celibate, and would consider any assertion otherwise blasphemous. Recent rumors about Mary Magdalene were dealt with by the Great One here. Don’t get me started on the implications of the Secret Gospel of Mark, though. That’s a whole other thread, and probably a column by Cecil, as well!
For the same reason most monks can’t do it either. (It being, serve as a priest.) Being a priest and being a religious (a monk or nun) are distinct and (usually) separate vocations. A priest is someone who is called to be a representative of Christ to His people. Several responsabilities, duties, obligations, and abilities are entailed in being a priest, the most important of which is the ability/privilage/duty to preside over the sacraments, notably Holy Communion, i.e., Mass. Only a priest, as the representative of Christ to His people can properly perform the essential acts of the sacraments. (Any one can serve Communion, but only after a priest blesses it.) (There are exceptions. Under the right circumstances, Satan, himself, could properly baptize someone, to full effect.)
None of this has anything whatsoever to do with being a religious. Monasticism began as a lay movement in the early church, and initially had a rather anti-clerical flavor. The first monks and nuns were individuals who fled the corruption of the cities and the churches to seek solitude in the desert. In some cases, I believe, they also wished to avoid being forcibly ordained as priests, as happened to St. Augustine! To be a religious is essentially to vow to follow the three “optional” commandments of Christ (the Catholic Church has a better word for them, but I can’t think of it.) These are: poverty, chastity, and obedience. Nothing about celebrating Mass. I have no idea what percentage of monks are also priests, but the vast majority of priests are secular priests (not monastic) as opposed to religious priests (who are also monks). (I know how funny that sounds, but what can I say?)
Admittedly, obedience has always been pretty much required of priests, and at least since the twelfth century, when reformers within the priesthood looked to monasticism as a model, chastity has been, too (in the Latin Rite, anyway). This leaves the sole difference of poverty, which hasn’t always been perfectly practiced by religious orders, and is undoubtedly true of many secular priests. The fact remains, however, that they are two very different traditions within the church. Nuns are the female equivalent of monks, not priests, and so cannot fill that role, regardless of whether women are allowed into the priesthood. BTW, “married to Christ” is a phrase often heard used in reference to nuns, but, in fact, it is not true of nuns in particular. The entire Church is considered to be the Bride of Christ. Nuns, as well as monks and priests, simply take the vows more seriously.
Aren’t you glad I’m away from my copy of the Chatechism, or I could really bore you!
Please remember folks this forum along with General Questions is for helping to eradicate ignorance, feel free to start a thread in an appropriate forum if reading this has caused you to need to flame, rant or give your opinion to the world. Just the facts here please.
OK, conflicting information, neither with cites. Is or is it not Dogma that Priests, Monks and Nuns cannot marry? Is it Dogma for two out of the three of those?
Also, for those of us that are not catholic, can someone clarify Dogma vs speaking ex-cathedra vs what ever is the Catholic term for decision coming from committee?
I’m not Catholic, dublos, and like I said, I’m away from my Catechism now (I can’t even find my @#%$ copy of the Vatican II documents, and it pisses me off!), but I do recall that there are several levels of authority attached to Catholic teaching, ranging from “believe whatever you want, but we say this” to “believe this or be damned (literally),” with lots of things in between.
Um, no. I’ve seen a great many monks perform Mass and pass out Communion. Well, so do nuns-pass out Communion-as does my dad as a Eucharistic minister.
The reason I’d heard was that priests and nuns are celibate in emulation/anticipation of the Heavenly Kingdom, in which everyone will be that way. Sounded a little far-fetched to me, to, and wasn’t much of an explanation of why the rule has changed over the years.
You have never seen a person not a priest validly perform Mass.
The Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law, Can. 900, §1, provides: “The only minister who, in the person of Christ, can bring into being the sacrament of the Eucharist, is a validly ordained priest.” Moreover, Can. 907 provides: “In the celebration of the Eucharist, deacons and lay persons are not permitted to say the prayers, especially the eucharistic prayer, nor to perform the actions which are proper to the celebrating priest.”
As you correctly discern, although the ordinary minister for the distribution of Communion is a priest, Can. 230, §3 provides: “Where the needs of the Church require and ministers are not available, lay people, even though they are not lectors or acolytes, can supply certain of their functions, that is, exercise the ministry of the word, preside over liturgical prayers, confer baptism and distribute Holy Communion, in accordance with the provisions of the law.”
A monk is generally understood to be a lay person, under religious vows - a “religious,” in shorthand. If a monk is validly ordained a priest, he may certainly celebrate Mass; simply being a monk, however, does not mean that the sacrament of Holy Orders was received, and that, and only that, is the necessary prerequisite to celebrate Mass.
Point taken, Guinastasia, and I have certainly never even mentioned paedophilia! But the OP was about catholicism, and it’s a religion I know a lot about, so I kind of just stuck to what I could talk about in an informed way. Also, to what are you referring when you say “that could be applied…”?. Other religions may share some of catholicism’s regrettable practices, e.g. the commended brainwashing of intellectually defenceless infant minds, but they do not share some of the self-contradictions and nonsenses unique to catholic doctrine.
As for ‘trolls’ - you see it your way and I’ll see it mine. But as for ‘irrational’ I think you’ll find that’s precisely what it means! But okay, AlanSmithee (love your films, by the way), I take your point. It might be useful to offer a simple distinction.
One might refer to “reason” meaning “from a subjective point of view, the cause or prompt for my actions”. In this sense, one’s “reason” for doing something can, of course, be anything one wants to be, such as your average serial killer saying ‘god told me to do it’.
However, “reason” can also be used the way it is most typically used in logic, epistemology, math, science, theology and so on, to mean “the establishing of valid relationships between statements or propositions”. It may sound heavy, but it’s not really. We all use “reason” in this latter sense in everyday life e.g. putting gas in the car, rather than orange juice.
Well, I got to know it inside and out over a period of around 25 years, involving many discussions on points of doctrine and teaching. I think I’m representing it accurately. That’s my intention, anyway.
**
You’re right, of course, dublos and I’m sorry if I’ve seemed way out of line. I think I have offered some facts, and ones relevant to the OP, but doubtless some Dopers have felt I should turn the heat down. Maybe. I guess sometimes strength of feeling gives facts a certain flavour that isn’t always welcome. I’ll do better in future.
Just FTR, it was muffin who brought up priestly paedophilia. Which probably has little to do with the subject at hand, though the question of that small percentage of priests who are paedophiles and what should be done is probably worth a thread, in GD or in the Pit.
There are several different things going on in this thread on which I feel moved to comment.
First off, there are two distinct reasons for celibacy in the Roman Rite of the RCC, one of which extends beyond its borders and one is its own private way of doing things.
“Religious” (n.) is a technical term meaning persons who have entered into a monastic order or something similar and who live under a rule (regula). Persons of this sort include monks, nuns, friars, lay brothers, sisters, canons regular and related categories. These persons have chosen to undertake the “Evangelical Counsels” of poverty, chastity, and obedience. In certain orders, there is what is called secular or tertiary vocations. Aside from these latter persons, those who take these vows give up all (or virtually all) worldly possessions, choose a life of celibacy, and undertake obedience to the elected heads of the order and of their own monastery/friary/convent. The secular/tertiary people live in simplicity, chastity (celibacy outside marriage and remaining true within marriage), and a form of obedience.
Being a religious is not an office in the church, it is a commitment to live a life to which you feel called by God. It gives no special privileges or powers.
Within the Roman Rite of the RCC, priests and bishops are called to be celibate because the church in its wisdom has understood having a wife and children to interfere with the all-important ministry the priest has to his flock. It’s a church rule, waivable at the church’s discretion. And, as noted, married Episcopal priests converting to Catholicism have been reordained and allowed to serve as priests while married. It must also be remembered that about 5% of the RCC is not Roman Rite, but a collection of Eastern churches that have come into communion with Rome and are more or less self-governing under the aegis of Pope and ecumenical councils. And most of them allow married men to enter the priesthood though not the episcopate, as was previously pointed out.
Some religious orders, such as the Jesuits and Augustinian Canons, have a healthy proportion of members who have been ordained to the priesthood. These men have the powers given priests and are under the rule of their order. Note that their life is governed by two separate vows: to belong to a religious order and to be a priest.
The latter system also prevails in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I’m not familiar with what the Church of Georgia (ex USSR, not Southern US) and the Coptic Churches do, but I believe it’s close to the Orthodox pattern.
The Anglican Communion (the worldwide loose association of churches in communion with the See of Canterbury and hence the Church of England, including the Episcopal Church in the US and the Anglican Churches of Canada and Australia) varies in its customs but always allows married priests and bishops. In America and I believe Canada, women may be ordained, unlike RCC and Orthodox practice. In fact, my own parish has a woman rector (= parish pastor) whose chief assistant is also her husband.
But both the Orthodox and Anglican Communions have religious orders, and their members are vowed to chastity (to celibacy excepting tertiaries and secular people). My wife is a life-professed member of the Third Order of the Society of St. Francis in the Episcopal Church. And she is chaste but not celibate.
Give me a break. After 25 years of firsthand experience, somehow YOU’ve escaped the shameful stigma and ignorance associated with the Catholoic church and found “enlightenment” that the rest of the poor brainwashed suckers haven’t because they’re pitiable, ignorant babes with the wool pulled over their eyes? Ah, but I have your “respect and sympathy”. Pity me, o wise one, how can I follow your wise path and find true knowledge as thou hast?
If your words about Catholics were spoken about gays, I can guarantee you’d be called on the carpet to defend those words so fast (and by people far more adept at such things than I) your head would spin.
<I ridicule and despise homosexuality not because I happen to disagree with it, but because it is ridiculous and despicable.
In addition, the fact that I respect the gay person (and I do) does not mean I have to respect the belief. It is well-nigh impossible to ‘respect’ something as Looney Tunes as the gay lifestyle.
As for the gays, they have my respect and my sympathy as unfortunate victims of a cruel and virulent mind virus>
I don’t think this analogy is out of line.
drpepper I appreciate your viewpoint, but would appreciate your taking it to one of the other threads or making your own then pointing a link to it here. it’s not germain to my OP and I’m trying to keep things on track here.
When you do I’ll gladly debate switching a belief system/religion for something which is just a biological fact in your analogy.
Thank you for that information. Do you have any references for the “church” rule (online or otherwise) requiring celibacy, and can you expand on the definition of chaste? I’d always considered chastity to be saving one’s self for marriage, and thus someone who’s married may certainly be completely faithful, but no longer chaste?
Yeah, one part of chastity is saving yourself for marriage. The other part is, once you are married, to remain faithful to your spouse.
So, chastity means “no sex outside marriage”. I would imagine it would also include not engaging in the kinds of behaviors that tend to lead to sex outside marriage.
Celibacy means “no sex outside marriage”, and also “no marriage”. Which means, no sex at all.
And a very happy New Year to you too, drpepper! I respect that Dublos wants to keep his thread on track, so I’ll desist from lengthy debate here. If you want to party on elsewhere, fine by me. FWIW, drpepper, I doubt your attempted sarcasm enhances your case, and as for your analogy… it seems very flawed to me, and way out of line.
Look, I made mistakes in my postings to this thread and I’ve apologised. My tone wasn’t appropriate, I got unduly argumentative, and I know I alienated some of the Teeming Millions. Mea culpa. But your supposed analogy… it really, truly sucks.
No joke. I’m told it got that way out of a difficulty with the “there will be no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven” thing. Basically, you couldn’t have married sex (since no one would be married) and sex outside of marriage is fornication (certainly not present in heaven), so there you are.
Sorry, I realize this thread has already run out of gas, but I just saw this (and feel compelled to defend myself). Let me start, ianzin, by apologizing for my tone in my prior post. I should have expected anyone to respond in kind. I shall do my best not to further contribute to an atmosphere of acrimony.
That being said, I stand by my original opinion, which is that your prior post served as a vehicle for you to vent your contempt for the Church (which is, perhaps, well-founded; I don’t know) without adding anything specific to support the notion beyond the fact that you were once a Catholic.
You later brought up Galileo’s persecution, articles of faith, the ordination of woman, and a number of other issues. In fact, for all I know, you may be completing a scholarly refudiation of every word that flowed from Vatican II. None of that changes the fact that you did NOT mention these interesting tidbits in your original post.
Other than revealing your disdain, IMO the closest you came to reacting to the OP was:
And this isn’t a terribly meaningful contribution, IMO–where did you get this information? From what source are you interpreting this? If there are holes in the Church’s reasoning, they’re not apparent, primarily because it isn’t even clear what you’re arguing against. I’m sure you’re not suggesting that the sum of the Church’s teachings on celibacy are summed up in your single sentence. There was nothing to argue against–and its not everyone else’s job to prove you wrong when you have not supported your position in any meaningful way.
And stating that the entire “logical” foundation of Church doctrine is unsound–therefore, why try to find reasons–also begs the question. From your second post:
If that is so, you’ll have to support that statement in some substantial way. That’s how it’s done on this board.
You also mention in your second post that you cannot be considered prejudiced, in that your opinion is “informed” by virtue of your experience in the Church (and I’m sorry your experience was poor–I sincerely hope one day you can reconcile with the Church). I can assure you that anyone professing contempt, let’s say for Jews, will confirm the fact that it is based on real experience and is not prejudice. The profession, however, does not make it so by itself.
If your opinion of the Church is expressed thusly:
…then you can expect people to react asking why they should accept these opinions beyond the fact that you say so (and you have 25 years of experience as a Catholic).
You can point out that I’m pulling these out of context, but please tell me how I can interpret your sentiments in any other way than:
No Catholic can think straight (by definition they are incapable–and yes, despite your protest to the contrary, this describes individual Catholics, not just Catholicism; please re-read your first post if you don’t think so).
All of Catholicism is hogwash (I’ll use your word since “faulty” seemed incorrect or unclear to you previously).
This is the very essence of bigotry, I believe. And I would strongly suggest to you that your credibility suffers when you make broad, unsupported statements such as this. I don’t care if you were a Catholic for 100 years, that is not a basis, by itself, for an argument.
And I’ll point out again, lest the point be lost, that regardless of any facts you bring into the debate at this point, you did not expand on your opinion in any real detail in your original post (and that is what I was reacting to).
Describing my post as a “straw man” argument tells me I didn’t make my point clearly: I have nothing particular to add to the priestly celibacy debate, and I’m not arguing anything at all; it just seemed to me that neither were you.
One final point: if you’re also suggesting that Papal infallibility leads to articles of faith which the Church then changes according to its whims, you may not be as informed as you believe about Church doctrine.
Hope that makes my point in a less-hostile fashion. If you think I’m misunderstanding something, please let me know.
Well, I hope we’re not out of gas here, but I would appreciate any more thoughts or clarifications that aren’t directly about my OP appear in another thread with a link here.
I’m still looking for what RCC decisions caused this to become the way things are done, and some definition what the various forms that RCC rules/regulartions take (I’ve seen/heard the terms Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law, Dogma, the pope speaking ex-cathedra, and myself mentioned the Gregorean Reforms, but I am not familiar enough with how such things work in the RCC to truely understand what these terms mean. Do appreciate those who’s taken time to post that the “rules” of whatever form would permit the RCC to change it’s stance, but I would greatly appreciate some cites and clarifications.