Priestly Celibacy And Its Roots In Christ

National Catholic Register ^ | May 19-25 | John Burger

[Lady In Blue]

 

Priestly Celibacy and Its Roots in Christ
John Burger's interview with Father Thomas McGovern

National Catholic Register
May 19-25, 2002

Related Article:
Celibacy Isn't the Problem - It's the Answer, Say Priests

Father Thomas McGovern, a priest of the Prelature of Opus Dei in Dublin, is the author of "Priestly Celibacy Today." He was interviewed recently by Register staff writer John Burger on issues about celibacy raised by the current sex abuse crisis.

Why is it that among the general population celibacy is in some way seen to be at the root of the sex abuse problem?

For some time there have been insistent calls for the abolition of "compulsory" celibacy in editorials and feature articles in the print media, and in TV and chat show commentary. Underlying much of this crusade is the assumption of a direct causal link between celibacy and sexual deviance. Yet at no time has any solid scientific or statistical evidence been offered to substantiate this claim.

Nevertheless, as a result of saturation coverage of some clerical sexual scandals in the media, many people seem to have been persuaded into thinking that there must be some intrinsic connection between celibacy and sexual immorality, and that it is widespread among the clergy. Indeed Pope John Paul II has referred to "a systematic propaganda which is hostile to celibacy" and "which finds support and complicity in some of the mass media."

In our contemporary sex-saturated culture, the very notion of a celibate lifestyle is incomprehensible to many people. For them celibacy is seen as a form of repression, a stunting of the natural growth of personality, leading to frustration and deep sense of psychological and emotional isolation. When this caricature of celibacy is fostered, then it is not difficult to see why people would begin to associate it with the current problems.

Consequently, as John Paul II affirms his 1992 document, Pastores Dabo Vobis, on the
formation of priests, there is a great need today to present and explain the charism of celibacy "in the fullness of its biblical, theological and spiritual richness."

How in fact does the Church understand celibacy? What is the connection between celibacy and priesthood?

To understand celibacy we have first to look to Jesus Christ. The link between priesthood and celibacy was first established in him. By remaining celibate, Jesus went against the socio-cultural and religious climate of his time, since in the Jewish environment no condition was so much deprecated as that of a man who had no descendants. By freeing himself from the claims of family, Christ was totally available to do his Father's will, to establish the new family of the children of God.

The priestly vocation is a personal grace by which a young man is called to share in the priesthood of Christ. Implicit in this call is the grace to imitate Jesus in his celibacy, drawn by the example and the mystery of Christ. Celibacy is a wellspring of spiritual energy that enables the priest to live a very fruitful and fulfilled life.

By sacramental ordination every priest is configured to Jesus and shares his priesthood in such an intimate way that he acts in the person of Christ. The sacrament of orders gives the priest a share in the mystery of Christ as spouse of the Church - as in Ephesians 5:23-31. The priest, as icon of Christ, has then to love the Church with the same spousal love, loving her with an exclusive, sacrificial love which results in all the fruitfulness of spiritual paternity, generating new children of God through his sacramental and pastoral ministry. This, according to John Paul II in Pastores Dabo Vobis, is the basic theological reason for celibacy.

Does celibacy involve a sacrifice?

Responding to a celibate vocation is a decision based on faith. At the ceremony of the diaconate, when he makes his solemn promise to remain celibate and consecrate his whole life to God, the candidate for holy orders knows that Christ is asking a lot of him. However, he accepts the consequences of his promise secure in the knowledge that he will never lack the graces he needs to overcome any difficulties he may encounter in his priestly life.

The calling does not eliminate the sacrifice involved in giving up the attraction to conjugal love in this life and the joyful prospect of setting up a family. Nevertheless, implicit in the response to God's call is the readiness to share in the sacrifice involved in building up the kingdom of heaven on earth. By living out his vocation fully, the priest manifests that Christ is sufficiently rich and great to fill the heart of man.

By his celibacy he lets it be known that henceforth he expects everything from God, the Creator of all love, in whose hands he places his human completion and his human fruitfulness. As a result, celibacy makes a constant appeal to the priest to live in intimacy with Christ.

A commitment to celibacy is in no way a rejection of the value of human sexuality. Indeed, as John Paul II has strikingly affirmed, it is precisely the person who understands the full potential for self-giving which marriage offers, who can best make a mature offering of himself in celibacy.

The priest who lives for Christ, and from Christ, usually has no insurmountable difficulties with celibacy. He is not immune to the normal temptations of the flesh but, as a result of the daily cultivation of his spiritual life, and the prudent distancing of himself from anything which could constitute a danger to his chastity, he will encounter great joy in his vocation and experience a deep spiritual paternity in bringing spiritual life to souls. As a consequence of celibacy, his heart is free to love others in an inclusive way.

Would a married clergy solve the vocations problem which many dioceses are experiencing today?

It is often suggested that if the Church had a discipline of optional celibacy many more young men would be attracted to the priesthood. This claim is not supported either by experience or objective data. While it is true that there has been a serious decline in priestly vocations in the developed countries of the West, this is not the case in other parts of the world. In Africa the number of seminarians, diocesan and religious, increased five-fold between 1970 and 1997. There was a three-fold increase in Central and South America in the same period, while candidates for the priesthood in South East Asia more than doubled.

Yet, there are good reasons for hope in the West as we can see from the healthy developments in some dioceses in the U.S. and elsewhere. Peoria [Ill.], Arlington [Va.], Denver and Lincoln [Neb.] have been singularly successful in attracting young men to the priesthood. Atlanta, which in 1985 had nine seminarians, now boasts 61. Another diocese with a healthy seminary situation is Omaha, Neb. - 56 men ordained between 1991-98 for a diocese of 215,000 Catholics. Mount St. Mary's seminary in Emmitsburg, and seminaries like those in Denver and Lincoln are thriving with the increased influx of vocations.

What all this says is that there are plenty of young men ready and willing to give their lives to Christ if they are challenged in the right way. John Paul II himself has been a great promoter of priestly vocations because of his compelling witness to a priesthood which reflects the person of Christ so clearly.

He generates a deep conviction about priestly identity - this is why he attracts many young men to the priesthood. It was in this context that Cardinal Baum said the present Holy Father is "the best vocation director the Church has ever had."

It is not without significance that in Europe as a whole vocations have increased significantly since John Paul II's accession to the papacy in 1978.

Pope Paul VI said it simply was not possible to demonstrate that the abolition of ecclesiastical celibacy would considerably increase the number of priestly vocations. The contrary seems to be proven by those churches and ecclesial communities which allow ministers to marry.

The cause of the decrease in vocations is, he tells us, to be found elsewhere, especially in the fact that individuals and families have lost their sense of God, and their esteem for the Church as the institution willed by Christ for the salvation of men.

This phenomenon is a particular expression of a much more widespread condition of lack of faith and lack of vibrant Christian families. Indeed, in this post-Vatican II era, it is only when evangelization promotes Christian commitment as a vocation for all that the ground will be adequately prepared for the fostering of the particular vocation to the priesthood.

What sorts of challenges does celibacy present to the individual priest, and do these challenges change over time?

Priestly celibacy is a call to a special friendship with Christ, a call to holiness. John Paul II, when he recently ordained 20 priests for the diocese of Rome told them very directly, "the Lord wants you to be saints."

A vocation to holiness requires daily effort and, for the priest, the commitment to celibacy is an integral part of that quest for sanctity. It is interesting to note that the U.S. cardinals, in their final statement about the Rome meeting April 23-24, made their own the challenge of the Holy Father that the present crisis had to "lead to a holier priesthood."

The chastity which goes with priestly celibacy is not something which is acquired once and for all. It is, as for all Christians, the result of daily effort. Because he is a normally constituted person, the priest is going to experience at times the brittleness of his virtue, the tug of his passions or the renewed attraction of married life.

Yet the wisdom and experience of the Church offer him all the necessary resources to achieve holiness. Daily prayer, love for the Eucharist, a spirit of self-denial, frequent confession and devotion to Our Lady are some of the tried and tested means which will give the priest joy and fulfilment in his vocation. In addition, if a priest has regular spiritual counselling, he will find it a powerful help to overcome any difficulties in the area of celibacy.

Personal spiritual guidance is an opportunity for communicating at the deepest and most intimate level of our being. It provides an awareness of being understood, supported and appreciated. This relationship is a powerful defense against the dangers of pessimism and frustration which can undermine the commitment of the priest.

In today's environment the enticements to sensuality which are purveyed by TV and advertising, by immodesty and bad example, are an opportunity for the priest, as well as for others, to make constant decisions in favour of purity of mind and heart, especially through guard of sight. As Christ reminds us, "Blessed are the pure of heart for they shall see God."

What influence does our contemporary culture have on the idea of celibacy?

Celibacy, which calls into question the reductionist philosophy of man spread abroad by our culture of scientism, is a challenge to that incapacity to make a permanent commitment which seems to be a characteristic of contemporary culture.

This inability to commit oneself irrevocably is demonstrated, particularly in the Western world, by the increasing rate of marriage breakdown and divorce, as well as by the rise in the number of couples living together without any binding commitment, civil or ecclesiastical. This is the result of a breakdown in basic social relationships where values such as loyalty, friendship and a spirit of service have less and less significance.

Love as self-giving is replaced by love as possession, where the other is regarded as an object of sexual fulfilment rather than a person to be cherished for themselves. In addition, the process whereby the sense of human fatherhood has been diminished or obscured in contemporary culture, has contributed to an impoverished understanding of the spiritual fatherhood of the priest.

Clearly, education has a decisive role in determining the type of people our society produces. If children learn little about self-denial or a spirit of service through self-giving to others, they will have limited capacity to understand and accept the sacrificial love which is required to live celibacy, or, indeed, to respond generously to the full implications of marriage as a Christian vocation and a way to holiness.

Many of the arguments against celibacy derive from the secular and Freudian idea that unless a person enjoys sexual fulfilment he is somehow diminished or is likely to be emotionally or psychologically unbalanced, a sort of freak in the modern hedonistic culture. In a world where the definition of man is strongly influenced by such presuppositions, and where more importance is given to psychological and sociological models of the human person than to those drawn from biblical revelation, there is a real need for seminarians to be deeply formed in Christian anthropology. It is only in the light of divine revelation, culminating in the Incarnation of the Word, that we can fully appreciate the unique value of the call to celibacy, and have the audacity to proclaim it as a great good.

It is often argued that, since celibacy is not a datum of divine revelation but merely a matter of ecclesiastical discipline and canon law, it can be abrogated at any time? How valid is this attitude?

Recent scholarship on the history of celibacy in both the Eastern and Western Church has shown that there is a considerable body of evidence in favor of the argument that priestly celibacy is of apostolic origin, based on Christ's invitation to the Twelve to leave all things and follow him. Indeed, John Paul II points out in his 1979 Holy Thursday Letter to Priests that celibacy is so closely linked to the language of the Gospel that it refers back to the teaching of Christ and to apostolic tradition.

What is clear from Scripture, from the early history of the Church, the writings of the Fathers, and the witness of many clerics, is that there has always been a tradition of priestly celibacy in the Church. This tradition was approved and spread by various provincial councils and popes.

It was promoted, defended and restored in successive eras of the first millennium of the history of the Church, although it frequently encountered opposition from the clergy themselves and the worldly values of a decadent society. Apart from the historical argument, the theological justification for celibacy has gained considerable ground since Vatican II, not least in the writings of John Paul II.

Consequently the idea that clerical celibacy is merely an ecclesiastical discipline is an argument that becomes progressively less convincing. As if anticipating the current questioning of celibacy, John Paul II, in Pastores Dabo Vobis, said that he did "not wish to leave any doubts in the mind of anyone regarding the Church's firm will to maintain the law that demands perpetual and freely chosen celibacy for present and future candidates for
priestly ordination in the Latin rite."

Can it not be argued that by imposing celibacy, the Church infringes the rights of the individual?

The objection that the Church, by "imposing" celibacy, offends the rights of individuals has no real basis. In the first place no candidate for the priesthood has a subjective right to be ordained.

The priestly vocation is a gift God can bestow on whom he pleases, irrespective of the merits of the individual. Secondly, those who are called to the priesthood accept with full freedom the discipline of celibacy laid down by the Church. This they do after several years of preparation and prayerful reflection, at an age when they are fully capable of making a mature decision.

Can the Church "impose" celibacy? The Church responds to the guidance of the Holy Spirit who is active within it and leads it into all truth. In this sense it is perfectly entitled - drawing on its experience, its tradition and the witness of celibacy lived to the full down through the centuries - to require its priests to be celibate. Certainly, in doing so, it is asking more than is humanly justifiable.

However, the Church is not a human organization. It has a divine origin and has been given powerful supernatural means of grace and charisms of the Holy Spirit, which justify it making the audacious claim that in the Latin rite it is God's will that its ministers should be celibate, and that in giving a vocation to the priesthood the Holy Spirit also endows it with the charism of celibacy.

At the same time the point has to be made that the Church obliges nobody to celibacy. The seminary years are an opportunity for the candidate for orders to reach a mature decision concerning his vocation to celibacy as a result of the specific formation he receives there. The seminary authorities have a complementary role to play in helping the student come to a conclusion about the authenticity of his vocation to the celibate priesthood. There is no pressure on the candidate to go ahead. On the contrary, he will be discouraged from doing so if there is any reasonable doubt about his aptitudes or suitability.

How valid is the argument that celibacy was imposed in the Middle Ages in order to prevent married clergy handing down Church property to their sons?

This argument is invalid because it results from a confusion of several distinct but related elements in Church history which need to be clarified. In the first millennium of the Church, apart from single men who came forward for ordination, many candidates for the priesthood were already married.

Nevertheless, a precondition for these men to be ordained was a commitment to perpetual continence in their subsequent married life. Church legislation on this requirement for married higher clergy - bishops, priests and deacons - goes back to the Council of Elvira, in the year 305 or thereabouts.

On the other hand, a single man, once he was ordained a priest, could not marry subsequently if he wished to continue in the ministry - this was a law which applied to the Church in both East and West from time immemorial and was never subsequently abrogated.

Down through the history of the Church many such priests failed in their commitment to celibacy and took to living with concubines, an abuse which became widespread during the Middle Ages. Pope Gregory VII [1073-85] reaffirmed the ancient norms concerning the prohibition of marriage for clerics in major orders but met with stiff opposition from priests in irregular situations who campaigned vigorously for the right to marry.

At the Second Lateran Council [1139], it was decreed that a marriage attempted by a bishop, priest or deacon was not only gravely illicit but also invalid. This led to the misunderstanding, still widespread today, that celibacy for higher clergy was introduced as late as Lateran II. In reality that Council declared invalid something that had always been prohibited.

During this same period the benefice system dominated the life of the Church. Ecclesiastical property, which was often very valuable, was linked to certain Church offices and could thus make the holder economically independent. The conferral of the benefice-office, frequently carried out by the secular power independent of Church authority, usually referred to as lay investiture, meant that these ecclesiastical offices were often filled by candidates - bishops, abbots, priests - who were anything but worthy.

This resulted in two fundamental abuses in the Church - simony [the sale of ecclesiastical offices] and the widespread infraction of the discipline of priestly celibacy whether due to the incontinence of married priests or the concubinage of single men. It was precisely against these abuses that the Gregorian reform was primarily directed. As a consequence, a serious effort was made to find more worthy candidates for the priesthood and to give them a better formation.

Also, as part of the drive to recover the obligation to celibacy, the number of married men accepted for ordination was gradually limited. From the time of Pope Alexander III [1159-81] married priests, as a rule, were not allowed to have ecclesiastical benefices, and the ordained son of a priest was prohibited from succeeding to his father's benefice. The accession of unworthy priests to ecclesiastical benefices did create the risk of alienating Church property, but the laws introduced by the Gregorian reform were focussed essentially on the eradication of the abuses of simony and lay investiture, as well as bringing about a return to a chaste way of life for the clergy.

Related article: Celibacy Isn't the Problem - It's the Answer, Say Priests

---

Subscribe Now... Letters to the Editor...About the Register...Send Us News to Cover...Back to Homepage

Copyright © 2000-2001 Circle Media, Inc.    All rights reserved.
Last modified: Thursday September 20, 2001 .

 

[Lady In Blue]

FYI and discussion.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Nevertheless, a precondition for these men to be ordained was a commitment to perpetual continence in their subsequent married life. Church legislation on this requirement for married higher clergy - bishops, priests and deacons - goes back to the Council of Elvira, in the year 305 or thereabouts.

Finally, a Catholic priest who knows his history.

[The_Reader_David]

Of course, the Council of Elvira was a local council only. In the Eastern Patriarchates clerical celibacy was never the norm--nor is it now neither among the Orthodox nor among the Uniates. The canons of the Council of Gangra, and the canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council defend clerical marriage.

The requirement of clerical celibacy was only uniformized in the Patiarchate of Rome after the schism, sometime in the early 12th century--1124 sticks in my mind. Before that, something like perpetual continence was required because of the common practice of celebrating daily Mass, and the requirement of continence the day before the celebration of Mass found in the Patriarchate's local disciplinary canons.

In the East, the corresponding disiplinary practice requires continence from Vespers through the celebration of Liturgy. (Which lead to the following amusing incident in one of the seminaries of Russia in the late 19th century: An archbishop (thus, himself a celibate and monk) was teaching a class, and came to the point where this discipline was explained. A young, very conventionally minded, seminarian suddenly stammered, '...but...Father Nikolai, back home...he celebrated Liturgy every day...you mean he and his wife never...'. The archbishop looked over his reading glasses at the seminarian and asked, 'And for what purpose did the Good Lord make the afternoon?')

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

There was quite a bit of conciliar legislation between the Council of Elvira and the First Lateran Council. References to clerical celibacy including the disciplince of lex continentiae can be found in the following:

Clement of Alexandria (~150-220 AD) "Stromata" Book VII, Chapter XI

Canons XXVII and XXXIII of the Council of Elvira 295-302 AD

Council of Nicea 325 AD

Pope Siricius "Dicreta" 385 AD

Pope Siricius "Cum in unum" 386 AD

Synod of Rome 386 AD

Second Council of Carthage 390 AD

Codex canonum Ecclesiae Africanae 419 AD

catechesis of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386 AD)

"Letter to Pammachius" St. Jerome (347-419 AD)

St. Jeromes' polemic with Vigilantius from Gaul 406 AD

"De conjugiis adulterinis" St. Augustine 419 AD

"Breviatio Ferrandi" ~550 AD

Third Council of Toledo 589 AD

councils held under St. Caesarius of Arles sixth century AD

Irish Penitentials sixth century AD

Poenitentiale Vinniani, no. 27, sixth century AD

Council of Metz 888 AD

Council of Mainz 888 AD

Council of Rheims 909 AD

Synod of Rome 1077 AD

First Lateran Council Canons III, XI 1123 AD

Second Lateran Council Canons VI, VII, XI 1139 AD

The logistical difficulties in disseminating and enforcing the discipline does not mitigate the fact that it existed and was practiced long before the 12th century and has it's origins in the Church with the Apostles.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

disciplince=discipline

[american colleen]

Bump - great post, I'm bookmarking it for those times (lately a lot) when I need proof that celibacy isn't just "another Catholic invention."

I have always been so grateful and humbled by the priests who gave up having a family and/or spouse to help me and my Catholic brothers and sisters on our road to salvation. What a magnificent sacrifice they have made. I think that is why most of us love our priests so.

[Catholicguy]

The requirement of clerical celibacy was only uniformized in the Patiarchate of Rome after the schism, sometime in the early 12th century--1124 sticks in my mind. Before that, something like perpetual continence was required because of the common practice of celebrating daily Mass, and the requirement of continence the day before the celebration of Mass found in the Patriarchate's local disciplinary canons.

Wrong, as usual. Prior to 400 a.d. Pope Siricius reminded all priests of their duty to observe mandatory continence. Please see "The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy" by Fr. Christian Cochini for the Documentation.

Your tendentious "histories" are unwelcome. Please confine your ahistorical and polemical "histories" to your own Communion. They are unwelcome here.

You can find some other thread on which to scratch your antiRoman itch. This is a thread concerning a CATHOLIC priest being interviwed in a CATHOLIC magazine and not a word was said about the orthodox.

CAN IT...

[a history buff]

That he can say that the African church's growth means that celibacy is fine is an exercise in the absurd, given that in one African country, Zimbabwe if I recall correctly, they couldn't find a single celibate priest with the smarts to be a bishop when Rome insisted at least the bishop be celibate.

And his history of celibacy is fishy as well.

[Catholicguy]

And his history of celibacy is fishy as well.

Consider a name change to "history bluff." All the priest asserts is Documented.

[ThomasMore]

"The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy"

I know this book well. Why continence?

[a history buff]

The ad hominem attack is unwarranted. And unChristian. As you very well know, or should know, Catholic priests of the Eastern Rites are allowed to marry. So either the Catholic church we both belong to has been taken over by heretics, this would go all the way to the top, since JP 2 holds the Byzantine rite in great respect, or you and your notions on celibacy are more wishful than factual. I personally do not think that JP 2 is a heretic.

The discrepancies between the more liberal European histories of celibacy and the ones you cite are fairly significant. Because, human nature being what it is, both the celibate clergy and the married clergy are disposed to problems, this debate has raged forever, with "permanent decisions" being made both ways. When you only dig up one set of such "decisions" and then deem this to be exhaustive, whatever you're doing is not history, but wishful thinking.

[Catholicguy]

The ad hominem attack is unwarranted. And unChristian.

The facts remain. What the priest asserted is not only documentable but it has been documented. There is nothing "fishy" about what the priest stated. It wasn't "UnChristian." It was funny

[Salvation]

Bookmarking for future reference.

[Salvation]

Pray for Catholic priests and Bishops

[Catholicguy]

Rome has ALWAYS kept the Faith while the orthodox, so-called, specialised in Schism Orthodox Schisms

[Catholicguy]

Be sure to click on the first "A response to Orthodox Critiques..." for a more expansive view - including a list of heretical Patriarchs.

I do this as a service to fellow Catholics who frequently are inundated with the venomous lies of certain orthodox.

All the accusations of schism and heresy coming from them are projections

[The_Reader_David]

I see nothing in your link which any news to me. It idiotically calls "Orthodox" heretical occupants of Eastern sees, a standard polemical trick of the Latins. The problem is that while we Orthodox have had experience dealing with heretical (i.e. by definition non-Orthodox) occupants of our sees and replacing them with Orthodox bishops--often by resistance led by the laity, monastics and ordinary clergy--you in the West, once your chief see fell into heresy haven't been able to reverse it, and now define your heresy to be "the Faith".

You yourself claimed infallibility on behalf of Ecumenical Councils, and yet will not acknowledge that the violation of the decree of the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, which forbade changes to the Creed, was the occasion of the schism between the Patriarchate of Rome and the Church. We have been able to maintain Orthodoxy despite occasional heretical occupants of major sees. You recite a Creed which violates the solemn decree of an infallible Ecumenical Council, and have the gall to claim your Patriarchate is free from heresy. Rome was out of communion with Constantinople already in 1054 over the issue, having been removed from the Diptychs of the Great Church in either 1009 or 1014--depending on whether the use of the heretical filoque became known through the (no longer extant) election encyclical of Pope Sergius or the cornation rite of Emperor Henry II, which is unclear. The mutual anathemas were a result of a failed attempt to restore communion.

The wetched attempt some Westerners made to fix the further heresy of created grace (the doctrinal error which actually occasioned the "reformation" when it was used as a basis for the sale of "indulgences"), unlike Orthodox corrections to errors among our hierarchs, which restored unity of faith, only led to further schisms and worse heresies.

[Catholicguy]

I see nothing ...

This part of your response I can agree with. All the rest is rejection of real history and gainsaying of Ecclesiology, Ecclesastical history and Doctrinal realities that you and your ilk deny ever existed.

As the link illustrates, ALL the heresy and schism is on your part -it NEVER has been part of Rome - and the orthodox have to go to the insane lengths of rejecting the Doctrine of their very own Earliest Saints.

That is a burden I leave happily to you.

Rome and her adherents have the truth, have always had the truth and will always have the truth while the orthodox invent new doctrine each decade.

It is your heretical rats nest, it grows ever more tangled and you are welcome to it.

[Catholicguy]

Rome and her adherents have the truth, have always had the truth and will always have the truth while the orthodox invent new doctrine each decade.

I forgot to add that on this site, one can see evidence the orthodox have changed their contraception doctrine.

1984 texts teach it is sin, newer texts say it isn't. Of course, that is exactly the OPPOSITE Doctrine of the Saints they claim as their Church Fathers, but the only consistency and constancy that appears to matter to them is the sempiternal animus against Rome.

Anti-Papal hate is the rennin that holds the orthodox together and I provided the links so that fellow Catholics can read the facts from a dispassionate source.

I certainly am not in a dispassionate mood and I have run out of patience with david and another expecially as they haunt Catholic Threads having NOTHING to do with orthodox issues and they spread their venomous polemics.

I suggest we steer clear of each other's Confession for, oh, I don't know, a millenium of so, and let this cool down....

How about it david? Mar Mena has already said she will stop the exchanges. Can we get an agreement with you? I promise not to intrude on any threads devoted to an orthodox post ( I NEVER have BTW)and you steer clear of threads devoted to Catholic issues. Sound fair?

[MarMema]

I can only think that the stress of being in the news each day is beginning to seem overwhelming.
Or, he has stopped taking a critical medication.

For the peace from above....

[Catholicguy]

I can only think that the stress of being in the news each day is beginning to seem overwhelming. Or, he has stopped taking a critical medication.

Gee, mar..and it was only yesterday you promised not to come to a catholic thread and engage...I guess your promises are as reliable as your "historical" perspective.

Well, I will stay witn MY promise. Latins are known for that. orthodox and their promises? I think we can all see

David, you never responded. Can you promise not to invade a Thread devoted strictly to Catholic issues?

If you can promise that, can you keep the promise?

[The_Reader_David]

Of course, you leave unaddressed the central point of my post--that you Latins use a Creed which violates the solemn decree of one of the Holy Ecumenical Councils--and reply only with brag and bravado. I again remind you that you yourself wrote that Ecumenical Councils are infallible.

If you tar the Orthodox with the ancient heresies we fought and overcame or expelled, with equal justice, Rome may be charged not only with briefly harboring monthelitism, with its principal and enduring heresy of filioquist triadology "the semi-Sabellian monster", the ecclesiological heresy of setting a single see as superior to the Holy Ecumenical Councils, the heresy of created grace and all its off-shoots (purgatory, indulgences,...), but with spawning Pelagianism, Catharism, Hussitism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Zwinglianism, Moravianism, Anglicanism, and on and on. I don't think you want to go that route--it is much worse for your cause than ours.

[Conservative til I die]

You thought MarMema was going to stay out of Catholic threads? Ha ha ha. It only exists to piss and fart all over Catholic threads. I rarely see it post on Orthodox threads, but in those rare instances, it can be seen hoping for a speedy death of the Pope. I'm not kidding.

[Conservative til I die]

I've been reading "Triumph," a history of the Church, and the Orthodox Church does not come off well at all. At all. There didn't really seem to even be any real issues that the Orthodox were upset about. It was mostly petty stuff and childish ex-communications of Popes.

[Conservative til I die]

I see nothing in your link which any news to me. It idiotically calls "Orthodox" heretical occupants of Eastern sees, a standard polemical trick of the Latins.

Why is it that Catholics tend to be polite, but Orthodox and Protestants cannot resist using perjoratives, both slight and major?

The problem is that while we Orthodox have had experience dealing with heretical (i.e. by definition non-Orthodox) occupants of our sees and replacing them with Orthodox bishops--often by resistance led by the laity, monastics and ordinary clergy

THat's a lie. The Eastern Church was the main reason heresies survived and were able to challenge legitimate Christianity, as found in the thriving Western Church. The Pope and the Emperors would have to resort to serious measures to stop the propogation of heresy in the East, where they just would not die. (Centuries of Arianism, mutliple waves of Iconoclasm).

--you in the West, once your chief see fell into heresy haven't been able to reverse it, and now define your heresy to be "the Faith".

Go read any Christian history, go read the Church Fathers. They uphold the idea that the Catholic Church IS where the historical True faith has always resided. The evidence is not always strong at times, but it's almost always there. I've yet to read anything that supports this fantasy that we were all Orthodox Christians until the Bishop of Rome decided to turn renegade.

You yourself claimed infallibility on behalf of Ecumenical Councils, and yet will not acknowledge that the violation of the decree of the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, which forbade changes to the Creed,

Difference between changing a creed and clarifying it.

was the occasion of the schism between the Patriarchate of Rome and the Church. We

[Catholicguy]

David, you never responded. Can you promise not to invade a Thread devoted strictly to Catholic issues?

[Catholicguy]

I plan to avoid completely all dialogue with any of your faith in the future myself. You can count on it.

177 posted on 6/12/02 4:30 AM Pacific by MarMema

I took her at her word...her promise didn't last too long; did it?

[Catholicguy]

Catholicguy, do you really think David and Mar Mena will STOP inserting themselves onto threads that don't even mention the orthodox?

Good question, CG. To be honest, no. I don't think they can. They are riven with animosity and their opposition to Rome and the Pope is the rennin that holds them together.

That they can't refrain from entering Catholic threads is itself evidence they KNOW who truly has authority. If they actualy believed they had the truth and the authority and that we were so corrupt, they'd avoid us like the plague.

Good point, Catholicguy. So, what are you going to do about it?

Well, I have seen how kind words do not turn away their wrath; so, I think it best just to ignore them.

Are you serious, Catholicguy? "Kind words...? "

Yes, I am serious. Go back and review the exchanges between Catholics and the orthdodx and you'll see that invariably the Catholics are effusive in their praise and post many kinds words about the orthodox. But, it isn't long before the charges fly, the accusations are made and, repeatedly, they tell us how much they dislike the Pope.

. I really don't think they are capable of acting otherwise; so, I think it best to ignore them

OK, I'm with you, Catholicguy. The anger, hostility, and the fighting casts us both in a bad light. Let them continue as they will and just ignore them. It isn't worth it.

[Catholicguy]

I've been reading "Triumph," a history of the Church, and the Orthodox Church does not come off well at all.

I haven't purchased that book yet. I do think that one reason some protestants are drawn to the orthodox is their Liturgy, but, far more importantly, their animus to Rome and the Pope. Many prots were raised to think that Rome and the Pope are evil and they find they are welcomed with open arms in the orthodox church. They also get to live in a communion that is quite flexible abouit Doctrine. They can contracept, divorce and reject authority while keeping the smells and bells - it is prolly seen as an enormous blessing for many.

Fortunately, most protestants that convert, convert to the true Faith and do not spend their energies attacking the orthodox or other protestants. By their actions you shall know them.

For every Frankie Shaffer who cultivates a nasty antiRoman and antiPapal personna and publicly attacks Rome, there are scores and scores of Scott Hahn's who never speak ill of other Confessions.

[The_Reader_David]

The post in which you requested I not "invade" a thread devoted to issues of Latin discipline never showed up in my self-search window. If you want me to reply, include my screen name in the header.

Fine, have your own little party on this thread. I hope one of your Byzantine Rite folk finds their way to it, since they will make the same point I did with regard to the main topic, and not be regarded as an "invader".

[Catholicguy]

Fine, have your own little party on this thread.

Can I take that to mean you will stop on other Catholic threads also

[The_Reader_David]

Can I take that to mean you will stop on other Catholic threads also [?]

That rather depends on the content. I am loathe to say I will avoid all threads dealing with your confession, as often those threads contain content deeply objectionable to the Orthodox, which I regard as requiring a response on our part.

If you hadn't been so bull-headed about having to answer me, my "invasion" of this thread would have been limited to reminding you all about the councils which defended clerical marriage and of the existence the Uniates who, though in your communion, have married clergy. Do not expect me, though, to use language, even when posting on threads concerning events in your confession, which would in any way give rhetorical support to your confession's claims or doctrines contrary to the Holy Orthodox Faith.

[Catholicguy]

That rather depends on the content. I am loathe to say I will avoid all threads dealing with your confession, as often those threads contain content deeply objectionable to the Orthodox, which I regard as requiring a response on our part. If you hadn't been so bull-headed about having to answer me, my "invasion" of this thread would have been limited to reminding you all about the councils which defended clerical marriage and of the existence the Uniates who, though in your communion, have married clergy. Do not expect me, though, to use language, even when posting on threads concerning events in your confession, which would in any way give rhetorical support to your confession's claims or doctrines contrary to the Holy Orthodox Faith

I figured. A simple "no" would have sufficed but you turn a straight forward question into just another opportunity to be both pedantically contentious and issue more of your false charges. That is so typical....

Frankly, Sir, you are beneath contempt and your "faith" is niggardly, pedantic, nationalistic, crabbed, false and envious of the true authority of the Pope.

I knew that neither you nor Mar could make a promise not to intrude upon another's area of Faith; that you are uncontroably driven to confront Divinely-constituted authority and that you were incapable fo promising not to attack another's faith.

It is highly revealing, at least to me, that Catholics can so easily promise NOT to go on orthodox threads and start fights - and stick with that promise - while some orthodox, like you and Mar, are incapable of extending the courtesy.

Nope, for true "Totalitarian ideologues," not Christians, promises of leaving others alone is impossible. They (folks like you and Mar, not Don-O) are unhappy leaving others to follow the Faith as they see fit and to explain it as they see fit. Your deadly drive to control others is so sick and twisted that you actually think YOU can define Doctrine for other Communions. You, sir are mad..And I leave the mad alone....May God have mercy on your soul

[sitetest]

Dear Catholicguy,

"Frankly, Sir, you are beneath contempt and your 'faith' is niggardly, pedantic, nationalistic, crabbed, false..."

I remind you that our Holy Father considers the Orthodox to be a sister Church in possession of substantially Catholic faith. I remind you that the Second Vatican Council considered the Orthodox to be a sister Church. I remind you that our Holy Father says that the Orthodox are the other lung of the universal Catholic Church. I remind you that the Church accepts as valid the sacraments, orders, and hierarchy of the Orthodox, and that the Code of Canon Law makes explicitly clear that Catholics, under limited circumstances, may receive the sacraments from Orthodox clerics (even married ones), and that these sacraments are entirely valid.

I suggest that it is quite beyond the pale to state that Orthodoxy is a false faith. If the Orthodox possessed a false faith, they could not possess a faith that is substantially Catholic, or valid sacraments, orders, and hierarchy. You seem to be in disagreement with several Supreme Pontiffs and at least one Ecumenical Council on this issue.

I guess that makes you a protestant! ;-)

sitetest

[Catholicguy]

(folks like you and Mar, not Don-O)

LOL...nice try. I was referring to david and Mar's personal "approach" and contrasting that with Don-o, who is orthodox

[sitetest]

Dear Catholicguy,

If that is what you meant, and not a slander against all of Orthodoxy, you have made that as clear as mud. But when you throw mud at others, mud tends to get everywhere and into everything.

You may also wish to think twice before you question whether or not The_Reader_David's personal faith is false or not. He seems to adhere to his Orthodox faith (though perhaps without visible charity), though he could use as many lessons in tact and diplomacy as you could. Nonetheless, he is just as wrong to assert that your faith is false as you are to assert the same about his.

Glad to see you haven't fallen into heresy. Especially over a schismatic.

;-)

sitetest

[Catholicguy]

If that is what you meant, and not a slander against all of Orthodoxy, you have made that as clear as mud. But when you throw mud at others, mud tends to get everywhere and into everything.

I thought I hade made that clear in earlier posts on this thread and others. It is never a Catholic that starts the attacks on a Patriarchate or Patriarch. It is always one of a few cetain orthodox who begins the attack on Rome and the Papacy and I am sure that David appreciates your defense of him even as I appreciate the reminder to be diplomatic.

:)

[sitetest]

Dear Catholicguy,

Wow. So I call a guy an undiplomatic, tactless schismatic, and I'm defending him. Talk about low standards. Cool.

sitetest

[Catholicguy]

Wow. So I call a guy an undiplomatic, tactless schismatic, and I'm defending him. Talk about low standards. Cool.

When I was Confirmed, all the Confirmandi jointly recited a promise our Local Ordinary desired. I promised, among other things, not to drink before I was 21, to not have sexual relations outside of marriage, etc.

While I cannot be sure, I think I made a promise never to respond to anyone who began by using, "Wow, and finished by saying, "Cool."

I am sure you will understand my reluctance to continue any further "dialogue" on this thread - just in case that was part of my Confirmation pledge.

Have a nice weekend :)

[a history buff]

It [the ad hominem attack] wasn't "UnChristian." It was funny.

My Catholic formation included the following prayer by St. Augustine:

In essentials, unity, in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things charity."

Words of wisdom if I ever head any. The church is troubled right now; hatred and bitterness will only make things worse.

[Catholicguy]

The ad hominem attack is unwarranted. And unChristian.

The facts remain. What the priest asserted is not only documentable but it has been documented. There is nothing "fishy" about what the priest stated. It wasn't "UnChristian." It was funny As I understand it, you can call what a priest says "fishy" (even though it has been documented) but I can't joke about your screenname?

Explain to me how you calling documented ecclessastical history "fishy" is charity while my rhyming your screename to highlight your ahistorical error is a violation of charity

[a history buff]

You know this is the sort of thing where we can look it up, and reach conclusions. So we may as well. What's happened is that the two sides keep different histories, and each says that theirs is authorative. In Europe the general concensus is that mandatory celibacy is a relatively novel general rule. This priest says otherwise. Facts are facts, and we can compare histories. I suspect there's some truth to both sides.

I personally think that celibacy, when lived, can allow those who understand it and truly live it, to be better priests than married ones ever will be. The downside is that when it's not understood, or not lived, the costs can be staggering. I truly lament the fact that the old traditions have been abandonded, but doubt that we can swim in the same river twice. (Ecclesia) fluctuat nec mergitur.

Let me go get some detailed histories, and I'm sure we can discuss this charitably. My other duties mean that this will take some time, but we can and should do it.

By the way, have you read the comments of the early fathers of the church about sexuality?

[Catholicguy]

The church is troubled right now; hatred and bitterness will only make things worse.

For my part, I admit to neither. I highly enjoy these exchanges and I harbor neither hatred or bitterness. I think it apparent I love to argue and I do not take these discussions, arguements, fights, exchanges, dialogues, critcisms etc personally. I always assume, probably too innocently, that others don't also. My intent isn't to hurt another's feelings but to enjoy the competition for truth.

My skin is thicker than Algore's head (and my head is thicker than my skin)

[Salvation]

This from the Navarre Bible Commentary for 8-16-02 Bold emphasis mine.

Posted on 08/16/2002 5:53 AM Pacific by WriteOn

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam (To the Greater Glory of God)

For: Friday, August 16, 2002

19th Week in Ordinary Time

Optional Memorial: St. Stephen of Hungary

From: Matthew 19:3-12

Marriage and Virginity ---------------------- [3] And Pharisees came up to Him (Jesus) and tested Him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" [4] He answered, "Have you not read that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female, [5] and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one'? [6] So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder." [7] They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" [8] He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. [9] And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

[10] The disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry." [11] But He said to them, "Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. [12] For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

***********************************************************************

Commentary:

4-5. "Marriage and married love are by nature ordered to the procreation and education of children. Indeed children are the supreme gift of marriage and greatly contribute to the good of the parents themselves. God Himself said: `It is not good that man should be alone' (Genesis 2:18), and `from the beginning (He) made them male and female' (Matthew 19:4); wishing to associate them in a special way with his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: `Be fruitful and multiply' (Genesis 1:28). Without intending to underestimate the other ends of marriage, it must be said that true married life and the whole structure of family life which results from it is directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich His family from day to day" (Vatican II, "Gaudium Et Spes", 50).

9. Our Lord's teaching on the unity and indissolubility of marriage is the main theme of this passage, apropos of which St. John Chrysostom comments that marriage is a lifelong union of man and woman (cf. "Hom. on St. Matthew", 62). On the meaning of "except for unchastity", see the note on Matthew 5:31-32).

11. "Not all men can receive this precept": our Lord is fully aware that the demands involved in His teaching on marriage and His recommendation of celibacy practised out of love of God run counter to human selfishness. That is why He says that acceptance of this teaching is a gift from God.

12. Our Lord speaks figuratively here, referring to those who, out of love for Him, renounce marriage and offer their lives completely to Him. Virginity embraced for the love of God is one of the Church's most precious charisms (cf. 1 Corinthians 7); the lives of those who practise virginity evoke the state of the blessed in Heaven, who are like the angels (cf. Matthew 22:30). This is why the Church's Magisterium teaches that the state of virginity for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven is higher than the married state (cf. Council of Trent, "De Sacram. Matr.", can. 10; cf. also Pius XII, "Sacra Virginitas"). On virginity and celibacy the Second Vatican Council teaches: "The Church's holiness is also fostered in a special way by the manifold counsels which the Lord proposes to His disciples in the Gospel for them to observe. Towering among these counsels is that precious gift of divine grace given to some by the Father (cf. Matthew 19:11; 1 Corinthians 7:7) to devote themselves to God alone more easily in virginity or celibacy [...]. This perfect continence for love of the Kingdom of Heaven has always been held in high esteem by the Church as a sign and stimulus of love, and as a singular source of spiritual fertility in the world" ("Lumen Gentium", 42; cf. "Perfectae Caritatis", 12). And, on celibacy specifically, see Vatican II's "Presbyterorum Ordinis", 16 and "Optatam Totius", 10.

However, both virginity and marriage are necessary for the growth of the Church, and both imply a specific calling from God: "Celibacy is precisely a gift of the Spirit. A similar though different gift is contained in the vocation to true and faithful married love, directed towards procreation according to the flesh, in the very lofty context of the sacrament of Matrimony. It is obvious that this gift is fundamental for the building up of the great community of the Church, the people of God. But if this community wishes to respond fully to its vocation in Jesus Christ, there will also have to be realized in it, in the correct proportion, that other gift, the gift of celibacy `for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven'" (John Paul II, "Letter To All Priests", 1979).

*********************************************************************** Source: "The Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries". Biblical text taken from the Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate. Commentaries made by members of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre, Spain. Published by Four Courts Press, Kill Lane, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland.

Reprinted with permission from Four Courts Press and Scepter Publishers, the U.S. publisher (see below).

"The Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries" are currently limited to the New Testament and Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Old Testament) books only.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE via Web using the following URLs or paths:

Regular "Daily Word For Reflection":

http://www.cin.org/mailman/listinfo/dailywordtoday

Week-Ahead "Daily Word For Reflection":

http://www.cin.org/mailman/listinfo/dailyword-week-ahead

The "Daily Word For Reflection" is a free service and a non-discussion list intended primarily towards personal reflection on the Word of God. It was begun in 1992 as an electronic evangelization ministry in Silicon Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, California, U.S.A.

The "Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries" is available from Scepter Publishers, PO Box 1270, Princeton, NJ 08542. The toll-free number is 1-800-322-8773; the fax number is 609-683-8780.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ." (St. Jerome)

"A man who is well-grounded in the testimonies of Scriptures is the bulwark of the Church." (St. Jerome)

"It is not enough to discover Christ--you must bring Him to others! The world today is one great mission land, even in countries of long-standing Christian tradition." (Pope John Paul II)

(PRAYER REQUEST: Please remember the "Daily Word For Reflection" apostolate and me in your prayers. Thank you very much! As a subscriber, you and all of your loved ones are in my daily prayers, especially during daily Mass.--Manuel Tuazon) _______________________________________________ Catholic Information Network - http://www.cin.org St. Gabriel Gift & Book Nook - http://www.stgabriel.com Dailywordtoday mailing list Dailywordtoday@cin.org http://www.cin.org/mailman/listinfo/dailywordtoday