Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Validity of Homosexual Vows of Chastity in Religious Life
New Oxford Review via Pertinacious Papist Blog ^ | April 09, 2010 | Fr. Regis Scanlon

Posted on 04/14/2010 2:22:26 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM

Friday, April 09, 2010

The Validity of Homosexual Vows of Chastity in Religious Life

By Regis Scanlon

We are all too painfully aware of the problems that homosexuality in the priesthood has caused the Catholic Church. When the John Jay College of Criminal Justice conducted its research into clerical sex abuse for the U.S. bishops in 2004, it found not a pedophilia crisis but what Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, described as a pattern of "homosexual predation on American Catholic youth." The first question that comes to mind is: Should the Church accept homosexuals into diocesan and religious seminaries and religious community life? Consideration of this question is based on the answer to a more fundamental question: Is a homosexual's vow of chastity in religious life valid?

Attempts to Address Homosexuality in Religious Life
Since the discovery that the real problem among deviant clergy is "homosexual predation," the Church has attempted to address the problem of homosexuality among the clergy. The Congregation for Catholic Education stated in its 2008 "Vatican Report on U.S. Seminaries" that, while homosexuality in U.S. diocesan seminaries is being appropriately addressed, "there are still some places — usually centers of formation for religious — where ambiguity vis-à-vis homosexuality persists."

Strange as it may seem, in the past twenty years there has been only one passing statement — one sentence to be exact — by the Vatican Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life dealing with homosexuality in religious life. In its 1990 "Directives on Formation in Religious Institutes," the Congregation stated, "In this context [of sexuality and formation] reasons must be given and understood to explain why those who do not seem to be able to overcome their homosexual tendencies or who maintain that it is possible to adopt a third way, 'living in an ambiguous state between celibacy and marriage,' must be dismissed from the religious life."

It is unclear what the Congregation means by "reasons must be given and understood." Is the Congregation still searching for answers to this problem? Is it not yet certain that men with homosexual tendencies should be dismissed from religious life? One does not have to think too long to discover a reason to dismiss those people "who maintain that it is possible to adopt a third way, 'living in an ambiguous state between celibacy and marriage.'" Thirty years ago, Fr. Jan Bots explained that the "third way" is a concept that describes "erotic-sexual friendships" between priests and religious (Homiletic & Pastoral Review, June 1980). Even the ultra-progressive Dutch bishops of the 1980s were in agreement with one another and with Rome in rejecting this "third way." So, those who advocate a so-called third way must be dismissed from religious community life because they are arguing for the right of religious to violate their vows of chastity by engaging in sexual perversion.

That's a clear and simple case. But what about a celibate man with homosexual tendencies: Should the Church dismiss him from religious life? A religious community accepted him and perhaps even knew of his same-sex attraction. It would therefore seem to be uncharitable to dismiss an elderly religious homosexual who has no problem living chastely. More to the point, then, the Church should ask whether men with homosexual tendencies ought to be permitted to enter male religious life now and in the future.

Chastity
In his Summa Theologiae St. Thomas Aquinas explains that chastity "takes its name from the fact that reason chastises concupiscence, which like a child, needs curbing..." (II-II, Q151, a.1). Chastity is thus a virtue that moderates the sexual appetite according to the judgment of reason. The vow of chastity involves more than perfect continence; it also involves a disposition of interior integrity in which a person gives himself totally to God. An "undivided heart" is the essential element of the vow of chastity (cf. Catechism, #2349; can. 599).

Aquinas pointed out that of the three vows in religious life — poverty, chastity, and obedience — the vow of chastity is the most critical for attaining perfection in religious life. He identified the first step to perfection as the renunciation of external goods in the vow of poverty. The second, higher step is the renunciation of "fleshly affection and of marriage." Aquinas elucidated:
Now amongst all relationships the conjugal tie does, more than any other, engross men's hearts.... Hence, they who are aiming at perfection, must, above all things, avoid the bond of marriage, which, in a pre-eminent degree, entangles men in earthly concerns.... For the soul is hindered in its free access to God, not only by love of exterior things, but much more by the force of interior passions. And, amongst these passions, the lust of flesh does, beyond all other, overpower reason.
Pope John Paul II, in his November 16, 1994, Wednesday audience, spoke of the three vows of consecrated life: "The [Second Vatican] Council...expressly mentions 'consecrated chastity' before the other two vows (cf. Lumen Gentium, n. 43; Decree Perfectae Caritatis, nn. 12,13,14), because it considers chastity as the determining commitment of the state of consecrated life."

The vow of chastity, as distinct from poverty and obedience, is the foundational commitment in consecrated religious life. This helps to explain why the order of "consecrated virgins" is a valid form of consecrated life even though the vow of chastity is taken without the explicit profession of accompanying vows of poverty and obedience (can. 604). Virginity also has a central and fundamental significance for the man who enters religious life because giving up woman represents the total giving of himself to God in all three vows. When a man gives up woman (viz., marriage) he is not only giving his "undivided love" to God in chastity, he is also giving to God his greatest possession and placing his spousal will at the disposal of the Bride of Christ through obedience to the Church.

The Homosexual Person
Fr. John Harvey, O.S.F.S., an expert on the pastoral care of homosexuals, defined the homosexual person as one who has an "erotic attraction to one's own sex...[and] the condition has existed for such a length of time that it seems that he will develop no meaningful heterosexual interests" (The Priest, Jul.-Aug. 1977). It is also important to note that the Catechism teaches that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" (#2357) and that the homosexual inclination itself is "objectively disordered" (#2358).

So, what does the Vatican Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life mean when it says that religious must "overcome their homosexual tendencies"? Given the accepted meaning of the terms, the Congregation appears to be saying that it is necessary for a person with a same-sex attraction to do more than give up homosexual acts in order to enter or remain in male religious community life. The Congregation seems to be requiring that he also overcome his homosexual urges or desires. Is it possible to identify "reasons" that "explain why those who do not seem able to overcome their homosexual tendencies" should not be allowed to enter community religious life?

The Near Occasion of Sin
In his book Love and Responsibility, John Paul II wrote, "Man, alas, is not such a perfect being that the sight of the body of another person, especially a person of the other sex, can arouse in him merely a disinterested liking which develops into an innocent affection." Honest men do not take vows of chastity or celibacy and then try to live out these vows by living in close quarters with women. They know that they cannot share intimate living space, like bathrooms and showers, with women and remain faithful to their vows. The Dutch experiment of the "third way," with priests living with nuns, showed definitively that this does not work. This is precisely why male religious live in monasteries with other men, and female religious live in convents with other women. The sexes are separated in religious life primarily for the sake of chastity.

But a man with homosexual tendencies has an erotic attraction to other men. So we must repeat the above insight of John Paul II on concupiscence with a slight alteration: "The homosexual man, alas, is not such a perfect being that the sight of the body of another person, especially a person of the same sex, can arouse in him merely a disinterested liking which develops into an innocent affection." A man with homosexual tendencies must take concupiscence and his sexual orientation into account when he chooses his vocation in life. He may wish to join a religious community of men, but in so doing he puts himself into a serious near occasion of sin. Homosexual tendencies and concupiscence must also be taken into account by the religious community that considers a man with homosexual tendencies as a candidate. Fr. Harvey stated it simply: Avoidance of the occasion of sin is the correct pastoral counseling for homosexuals.

Some may wish to argue that if a man's same-sex attraction is mild perhaps a religious community could still accept him. This is nonsense. A man who has a "slight problem" controlling his erotic urges for women does not overcome his erotic desires by living with women in close quarters. He knows that this will only fan the flames of his passion. The same is true for the homosexual man with mild erotic desires. He does not overcome his homosexual urges and desires by living in close quarters with other men. This will only amplify his homosexual desires. He must overcome these homosexual tendencies before he enters religious life.

Does a Homosexual's Vow of Chastity Have Meaning?
Our Lord Jesus Christ said, "Everyone who has given up home, brothers or sisters, father or mother, wife or children or property for my sake will receive many times as much and inherit everlasting life" (Mt. 19:29). When a man takes vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience in religious life, he is attempting to fulfill these words of our Lord.

It is crucial to understand that when a man forgoes marrying a woman for the sake of the Kingdom of God, he is giving up to God something very good. Marriage to a woman is not evil. It is wonderful. A man could legitimately take a wife and still please the Lord. A man who chooses to give up woman gives to the Lord what he loves most. Consequently, the man's love of God is a total giving of himself. In his 1981 apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, John Paul II described celibacy as "the supreme form of that self-giving that constitutes the very meaning of human sexuality."

The fact that the vow of chastity is a free gift of oneself to God is the key to the magnificence of the vow of chastity. In fact, Jesus distinguishes those who freely give up sex for the sake of the Kingdom of God from those who are not interested in sex from birth and those who have lost this desire by the actions of others: "Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Mt. 19:12). Only those who have a desire to marry, or are attracted to the opposite sex, and give this up freely for the sake of the Kingdom of God, are fulfilling the evangelical meaning of the vow of chastity.

The celibate homosexual male also gives up sex for the Kingdom of God. But the homosexual must give up homosexual acts because these are, for one, clearly condemned in the Scriptures. St. Paul, for example, teaches about those "who suppress the truth by their wickedness.... Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own person the due penalty for their perversity" (Rom. 1:18, 26-27). Elsewhere, St. Paul teaches that "neither...boy prostitutes nor sodomites...will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-10). The celibate homosexual male, therefore, doesn't need a vow to give up sex with men. He already has a divine law obliging him to do so.

Because the homosexual is already bound by the natural and divine law to renounce sexual relations with other males, he cannot renounce sexual activity with other males as a free gift to the Lord. And because he does not have a full and healthy attraction to women, he cannot renounce the possibility of sexual relations with women. One cannot renounce what one does not have!

What, then, is the meaning of a celibate homosexual male's vow of chastity? Here we are speaking about someone in whom "the condition has existed for such a length of time that it seems that he will develop no meaningful heterosexual interests." To bind oneself by a vow to abstain from something one is already bound to avoid (homosexual acts) is as superfluous as taking a vow to refrain from doing something one will not do anyway (heterosexual acts). In this case, the celibate homosexual male's vow of chastity is meaningless.

Would a Homosexual's Vow of Chastity Be Valid?
Jesus surely meant by chastity that a man would give up woman for the sake of the Kingdom of God, and that a woman would give up man for the sake of the Kingdom of God. For men, an exclusive attraction to women is a necessary prerequisite for a scripturally valid consecration to the Lord in celibacy. A homosexual male, therefore, does not have the means to answer the Lord's call to give up sex for the sake of the Kingdom of God. If a person cannot do what Jesus intended by the vow of chastity, then that person's vow of chastity is invalid. So, a homosexual male cannot make a scripturally valid consecration to the Lord in chastity through celibate religious life. Similar to the way that impotence is an impediment to valid marriage vows (can. 1084), so homosexual tendencies are an impediment to the vow of chastity in religious life.

What About "Mild" Homosexual Tendencies?
But what about the celibate homosexual male who has homosexual tendencies but has not engaged in homosexual acts: Would he be able to make a valid vow of chastity in religious life? The Linacre Institute points to some interesting findings on homosexuality in its excellent work After Asceticism: Sex, Prayer and Deviant Priests (Author House, 2006). After conducting an extensive review of the scientific literature on the subject, the Institute states that, "compared to the typical adult heterosexual male, the male with homosexual tendencies is very much a moving target who displays a wide variety of sexual behaviors and interests.... This means that the self-identified homosexual, as well as other homosexually experienced men, often have sex with women whereas the self-identified heterosexual rarely if ever has sex with males."

So, would a celibate male with a mild homosexual orientation be able to give up woman for the sake of the Kingdom of God? Yes, but it would not have the same meaning as it would for a celibate heterosexual male. Woman means much more to the celibate heterosexual male than she does to the man who is attracted to both men and women. The exclamation of Adam at the sight of Eve symbolizes that woman, like nothing else, is the delight of man: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called 'woman,' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken" (Gen. 2:23). Woman complements man and "at last" fills up his loneliness like no other creature can. When one considers all creation, it is clear that woman is God's greatest gift to man.

The heterosexual male is totally attracted to woman. Thus, the celibate heterosexual male makes a total gift of himself to God by giving up woman in the "supreme form of that self-giving" to the Lord. But woman is not the total sexual interest of the celibate mildly homosexual male — his interest is divided between men and women. The celibate mildly homosexual male, therefore, is not able to emotionally appreciate woman as God's greatest gift to him. Consequently, the mildly homosexual male's act of giving up woman does not represent the total gift of himself to the Lord. Only the celibate heterosexual male can fulfill the Lord's call of giving up a wife and renouncing marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

Conclusion
A celibate man with homosexual tendencies should not be permitted to enter religious life because (1) he will be entering a near occasion of sin; (2) his vow of chastity will be meaningless; and (3) his vow of chastity will be scripturally and canonically invalid. The Catechism states, "Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (#2359). One should not, however, confuse this vocation with the call to community religious life.

[Fr. Regis Scanlon, OFM Cap., is the director of Catholic Prison Ministry for the Archdiocese of Denver, where he is also chaplain for the Missionaries of Charity's shelter for homeless women. His articles have been published in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, The Catholic Faith, Soul Magazine, Pastoral Life, and The Priest. He has also made two series for Mother Angelica's EWTN: Crucial Questions, Catholic Answers and What Did Vatican II Really Teach? Fr. Scanlon's foregoing article, "The Validity of Homosexual Vows of Chastity in Religious Life," was originally published in New Oxford Review (March 2010), pp. 18-22, and is reproduced here by kind permission of New Oxford Review, 1069 Kains Ave., Berkeley, CA 94706.]



TOPICS: Catholic; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: celibacy; celibate; chaste; chastity; homosexualagenda; romancatholic; romancatholicism; vows

1 posted on 04/14/2010 2:22:26 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Vows of chastity are difficult to keep, no matter who is making them. I don’t believe it is biblically required for a priest to be unmarried. But, since the Catholic Church requires that, people who aren’t willing to live up to that standard just shouldn’t become priests.


2 posted on 04/14/2010 2:27:33 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
Similar to the way that impotence is an impediment to valid marriage vows (can. 1084), so homosexual tendencies are an impediment to the vow of chastity in religious life.

So, Catholics see impotence as a valid way to end a marriage? Does this allow divorce, or is it that odd concept of “annulment?”

3 posted on 04/14/2010 2:27:40 PM PDT by ConservativeMind (Hypocrisy: "Animal rightists" who eat meat & pen up pets while accusing hog farmers of cruelty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Thank you for posting this article.


4 posted on 04/14/2010 2:32:19 PM PDT by siamesecats (God closes one door, and opens another, to protect us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
>>Similar to the way that impotence is an impediment to valid marriage vows

So, Catholics see impotence as a valid way to end a marriage?

No, that's not what the quote says. It says that impotence is an impediment to marriage vows. That is, a man who is impotent cannot make valid marriage vows. He cannot get married. It EMPHATICALLY DOES NOT say that a married man who becomes impotent ceases to be married or that his marriage can be divorced. His condition at the time he made the vow is relevant, not a change in his condition after.

If you don't understand the distinction, I'll try to explain further.

5 posted on 04/14/2010 2:33:14 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

A vow of marriage between a gay couple is a promise to God to continue being an abomination. Dangerous territory if you ask me.


6 posted on 04/14/2010 3:22:34 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

I taught at an RC seminary In the 60’s. It was rife with homosexuality. There was substantial confusion about sexuality. Some believed that homosexuality was an acceptable solution to the problem of celibacy. This led directly to the substantial abuse of children by homosexual priests.
It has taken far too long for the church to clear this matter up. I am pleased to hear, finally, that there is an understanding of the relationship between homosexual priests and sexual abuse.


7 posted on 04/14/2010 3:27:38 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell (He is the son of soulless slavers, not the son of soulful slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
God created us male and female. I've never seen anything in the Bible that convinces me that those called to follow God should be celibate. Monogomous and hetrosexual yes, but not celibate.

It is foolish to put such unreasonable and unnatural restrictions of Priests. We as human beings are incapable of avoiding sin on our own. Fortunately God is forgiving of the repentant.

It is foolish of the Catholic church to put additional obsticles in the path of Priests trying to avoid sin. It also seems ridicules to prohibit those who commit themselves to God from having and raising children. Why would God wish for his most faithful servants to be banned from reproducing?

Though I think it would be better off sticking with God's rules, the Catholic Church has a right to make its own rules. For a long time I was a Catholic that disagreed with some fundamental teachings of the Church. Eventually it occurred to me that if I disagreed on such fundamental issues, then I wasn't really Catholic. So I'm no longer Catholic.

8 posted on 04/14/2010 3:44:38 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
You just need to spend more time reading scripture. ;-)

Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church's practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.

Matt. 19:29 - Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.

Matt. 22:30 - Jesus explains that in heaven there are no marriages. To bring about Jesus' kingdom on earth, priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage. This way, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage). This also makes it easier for priests to be transferred to different parishes where they are most needed without having to worry about the impact of their transfer on wife and children.

1 Cor 7:1 – Paul teaches that it is well for a man not to touch a woman. This is the choice that the Catholic priests of the Roman rite freely make.

1 Cor. 7:7 - Paul also acknowledges that celibacy is a gift from God and wishes that all were celibate like he is.

1 Cor. 7:27 – Paul teaches men that they should not seek marriage. In Paul’s opinion, marriage introduces worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God, specifically regarding those who will become full-time ministers in the Church.

1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 - Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “who refrains from marriage will do better.”

1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church's celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church's Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.

1 Tim. 4:3 - in this verse, Paul refers to deceitful doctrines that forbid marriage. Many non-Catholics also use this verse to impugn the Church's practice of celibacy. This is entirely misguided because the Catholic Church (unlike many Protestant churches) exalts marriage to a sacrament. In fact, marriage is elevated to a sacrament, but consecrated virginity is not. The Church declares marriage sacred, covenantal and lifegiving. Paul is referring to doctrines that forbid marriage and other goods when done outside the teaching of Christ and for a lessor good. Celibacy is an act of giving up one good (marriage and children) for a greater good (complete spiritual union with God).

1 Tim. 5:9-12 - Paul recommends that older widows take a pledge of celibacy. This was the beginning of women religious orders.

2 Tim. 2:3-4 - Paul instructs his bishop Timothy that no soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim his to satisfy the One who enlisted him. Paul is using an analogy to describe the role of the celibate priesthood in the Church.

Rev. 14:4 - unlike our sinful world of the flesh, in heaven, those consecrated to virginity are honored.

Isaiah 56:3-7 - the eunuchs who keep God's covenant will have a special place in the kingdom of heaven.

Jer. 16:1-4 - Jeremiah is told by God not to take a wife or have children.

9 posted on 04/14/2010 4:52:06 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

Yes, impotence is one cause for ‘annulment’ because it’s assumed that marriage ought to be open for children.


10 posted on 04/15/2010 12:16:36 AM PDT by BenKenobi ("we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“I’ve never seen anything in the Bible that convinces me that those called to follow God should be celibate.”

You’ve not read Corinthians? Paul is very clear. “The unmarried man does not have his attentions divided and can devote himself entirely to God.”


11 posted on 04/15/2010 12:17:49 AM PDT by BenKenobi ("we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

At least you made an honest decision to leave and should be applauded. Catholicism with it sacramental system of graces isn’t accepted by all and so becoming unchurched or protestant is far superior for some than remaining Catholic. Many are called but few are chosen and the door to salvation is narrow. Now if the current apostate nuns and clergy would leave, it would be beneficial to both Catholicism and Protestantism.


12 posted on 04/15/2010 7:54:25 AM PDT by bronx2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Excellent article and thanks for posting it, Dr. Kopp.
BTTT


13 posted on 04/15/2010 2:34:10 PM PDT by vox_freedom (America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Wow.Jesus totally contradicted what G_D said about getting married! Celibacy is actually considered a big sin in the Torah.If Jesus truly is G-d then he contradicted himself.I used to be a Christian but there are way too many inconsistancies in the Christian bible. I never understood the trinity;anytime I asked a question about it I was labeled a sinner.I refuse to accept something just because someone tells me it’s so.


14 posted on 04/15/2010 4:29:57 PM PDT by POWERSBOOTHEFAN (Blessed Be The Name Of The Lord,For His Name Alone Is Exaulted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

G_d clearly stated that it is a sin for one to remain celibate. This can be found in the Torah.G-d wants us to come together in a committed relationship


15 posted on 04/15/2010 4:35:46 PM PDT by POWERSBOOTHEFAN (Blessed Be The Name Of The Lord,For His Name Alone Is Exaulted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: POWERSBOOTHEFAN

So you reject both the OT and the NT?

Isaiah 56:3-7 - the eunuchs who keep God’s covenant will have a special place in the kingdom of heaven.

Jer. 16:1-4 - Jeremiah is told by God not to take a wife or have children.


16 posted on 04/15/2010 6:31:10 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Wrong,wrong,wrong.I accept the Torah,which Christians call the OT.The Torah has been re-written,if you will,to make it seem as though Jesus is the promised messiah. What is said in the Christian bible contradicts the Hebrew Bible. The Torah makes no mention of a messiah who will be divine,and G-d wants his children to get married and bring children into the world.”Be friutful and multiply”.I’ll have to go back and re-read Jeremiah but what I have learned is that marriage is a big deal to Jews.What Jesus said in the Christian bible is the total opposite of what G-d said in the Torah,so clearly Jesus cannot be G-d.The word of the Torah is forever binding,and is never to be changed.


17 posted on 04/15/2010 7:17:24 PM PDT by POWERSBOOTHEFAN (Blessed Be The Name Of The Lord,For His Name Alone Is Exaulted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: POWERSBOOTHEFAN

Well, this thread is a discussion for Christians, so thanks for sharing, but your points are off topic at best.


18 posted on 04/15/2010 7:44:58 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

I thought Jews were allowed to give their views as well.At any rate you misunderstood what I was getting at;the Torah and the Christian bibles say two very different things about marriage,the messiah,etc.I was just trying to point out the differences.At any rate,my statements were not meant to be insulting.I just find it interesting how the Torah(what you would call the OT)and the Christian bibles say two very different things.The fact that the Torah says marriage is a very important thing,a mitzvah of sorts,and that Jesus said that chastity is the ideal,if one can handle it,fascinates and perplexes me.I guess I’m just looking at this from the Jewish perspective.If you and I knew each other and were speaking face-to-face it would be much easier,and perhaps even more civil,to have a conversation on the matter.


19 posted on 04/16/2010 10:32:52 AM PDT by POWERSBOOTHEFAN (Blessed Be The Name Of The Lord,For His Name Alone Is Exaulted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp; wagglebee; narses; Salvation

I just read this article and think it is very good; just not sure if it should be pinged out; I’ll let you decide, since it seems more of interest to Catholics.

The explanation of why chastity (I would use the term celibacy but I will have to look up the exact definitions; I think of celibacy as refraining from all sexual acts) is also esteemed in Hinduism, for basically the same or correlated reasons.

(pinging a couple of other names who might like this one.)


20 posted on 04/16/2010 9:12:17 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: POWERSBOOTHEFAN
If you and I knew each other and were speaking face-to-face it would be much easier,and perhaps even more civil,to have a conversation on the matter.

Certainly. My apologies for being curt.

21 posted on 04/17/2010 10:09:51 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

I’m sorry if I came across as being discourteous myself.I was not looking to insult anyone.It’s just that when people communicate on the internet things can be misconstrued.I meant no disrespect.As Freepers were are all supposed to be on the same page,right? I’ve seen some of the comments made on FR.


22 posted on 04/17/2010 6:20:17 PM PDT by POWERSBOOTHEFAN (Blessed Be The Name Of The Lord,For His Name Alone Is Exaulted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson