Replies

I guess we’re talking over each other but you don’t seem to be addressing ANY of MY points as well:

I don't agree... but let's try again:

1) The Bible does NOT require a policy of celibacy for service in the priesthood.

I agree... and I've said so explicitly, at least three times, now! I (and at least one other person) also said that this is largely irrelevant, since Catholics do not hold to the false notion of "sola Scriptura" (i.e. if it isn't in the Bible, don't trust or use it in matters pertaining to faith/salvation). Confessionals aren't in the Bible, either, but their purpose (which is to supply privacy and anonymity for the penitent) is a good one, for example. Finally, I also said that the Bible (i.e. Jesus Himself, and St. Paul) *strongly endorse* the idea of celibacy for those who minister to others. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of, "If the Bible doesn't say it, then the Church has no business mandating it!" That's simply not true at all.

2) Priests in the Bible were in fact married men with families.

And for at least the fourth time: I AGREE. I said so, myself (do a text search for "St. Peter" and "bishop" in my comments above, for just one example). How can you have read my comments, and not know that?

3) Mandatory clerical celibacy was not instituted in the Church until after the Middle Ages and for reasons that had nothing to do with either the Old Testament or the Gospels.

Okay, I'll bite: what do YOU think are these "non-OT, non-Gospel" reasons why the Church instituted the practice? (And did you leave out the letters of St. Paul, and the other non-Gospel NT books, in your example for a reason?)

4) St. Paul chose to remain abstinent in his final years, says it is a gift, but also has high praise for Holy Matrimony, and does not say that married people cannot be priests.

You have no evidence, WHATSOEVER, that St. Paul was ever married, romantically involved, etc. NONE. No such evidence exists in Scripture... or in any other reputable extra-Biblical source. As such, your insistence on pointing to St. Paul's "final years" (as if 50-year-old men somehow lose interest in sex and are not prone to sexual temptation--an idea which is laughable and provably false) is a pure red herring.

You also keep mentioning the idea that St. Paul praises Holy Matrimony (I have the sneaking suspicion that I said the same thing... yes? See above for multiple references...). *I KNOW.* Of COURSE he does! He praises it because it's praiseworthy! He simply praises celibacy MORE. ("So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better." -1 Corinthians 7:38) I've posted that THREE TIMES, now. If you don't get this after the third repetition, then I'll be forced to conclude that you're either not capable of comprehending what I've written, or you're deliberately ignoring it. Come off it, man!

5) The current Pope says the policy is subject to change which is in fact mentioned in the article above.

FRiend, either you have a reading problem, or you're skimming, or you're being dishonest, here. Go back and read virtually every comment I've written to you, and you'll find that I GRANTED this point of yours from the very outset! Celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma; disciplines can be changed when the need arises, whereas dogma is irreformable (i.e. it cannot ever change). Why are you under the impression that I haven't addressed these points of yours? I've addressed them all, REPEATEDLY, so far!

6) Catholic priests in the Eastern Europe and the Middle East are permitted to remain married. Same with Orthodox priests.

Yes (which I also granted, from the very beginning). Wht relevance does this have? The Eastern Church does [x], so the Latin Church is forbidden to do otherwise? Should the Latin Church be forced to adopt Greek as its official language, too? Should the Latin Church be forced to give Baptism, Holy Communion and Confirmation all in one shot to infants, as the Eastern Churches do? Why?

Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As the Pope said the policy is subject to change. I agree.

Are you arguing with some imaginary "paladinan" who's disagreeing with that, and who hasn't agreed with that REPEATEDLY? If so, I'd like to talk to him!

Well, it now looks like we agree on most of the points I was raising. Hopefully I won’t be excommunicated, burned at the stake, or deemed a heretic.

We seem to have some disagreements on what St. Paul is trying to convey here. I do not know if St. Paul was ever married or not. His marital status is never discussed in the Bible. Paul does in fact praise abstinence. He also praises Holy Matrimony. He does say abstinence is a gift and in his opinion is the best way to live. No where does he say it is a requirement for service in the priesthood.

There are MANY Catholics who question the policy. We are not all liberals. I know many fellow Knights who question the policy as well as theologians who teach at Catholic universities. Even the Pope has said the policy is subject to change.