Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Radio Replies First Volume - Celibacy
Celledoor.com ^ | 1938 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

Posted on 11/10/2009 9:08:44 PM PST by GonzoII

Celibacy



1193. Who made the law of celibacy?

The Catholic Church, with God's approval and authority, following the example of Christ and the Apostles.

1194. Did not Pope Gregory VII originate it in the 11th century?

No. He merely enforced the already existing law more rigidly in his efforts to correct abuses. Over 300 years before Gregory VII was Pope, the Greeks met the Latin Bishops at the Council of Trullo, and admitted, "We know that the law of the Roman Church is to demand that married men, from the moment of their ordination, must separate from their wives forever." St. Jerome, over 300 years before that, wrote, "The Apostolic See accepts married men to be Priests provided they live no longer as husbands to their wives." Marriage was never allowed after ordination. If a single man were ordained, he had to practice celibacy. If an aspirant were already married, he had to practice celibacy from the day he became a Priest. Pope Siricius, in 385 A.D., said, "All we Priests are obliged by an inviolable law dating from our ordination to be continent and chaste, and thus offer the sacrifice of our bodies to God." This same Pope wrote also, "I have heard that a Priest of Christ has married, defending his action by saying that the Priests of the Old Law married. But the Church, the Spouse of Christ, has always loved chastity. Wherefore any Priest who claims a privilege from the Old Law which is unlawful in the New must know that he is deprived by the authority of the Apostolic See of the ecclesiastical honor he has so misused, nor can he celebrate the divine mysteries." Pope Siricius was not beginning a new law in the Church, but blaming an individual for not observing a law that had long been in existence. In 314 the Council of Neo-Caesaria had also said, "If a Priest marries, let him be degraded." The Apostolic Constitutions gave the law, in the 2nd century, "If a Priest or Deacon is not already married, he can never contract marriage." Thus right back to the 2nd century you have explicit testimony that in the Catholic Church once a man became a Priest he had to renounce marriage, and practice celibacy.

1195. Are there not Oriental Churches united to the Catholic Church, yet without the law of celibacy?

Yes. They have been exempted from the law obliging all Priests of the Latin Rite. The Church has tolerated the ancient custom of marriage in those Eastern Churches which have sought reunion with her, allowing married men to be ordained amongst them, though marriage subsequent to ordination is forbidden. But in the Western Latin Church the full law must be observed.

1196. God commanded all men to marry when He said "Increase and multiply."

That is a general precept for the whole human race, and a general blessing upon marriage. But it does not bind each and every individual. If it did, every single marriageable man in the world is breaking God's commandment and is in a state of sin. Or when would a man begin to sin by not being married? At 18? 19? 20? Or only when he could afford to support a wife? And would you accuse Christ of violating God's will ? Or if you exempt Him because of His divinity, would you blame the Apostles? Was St. John the Baptist so very evil? Or St. Paul, who wrote, "I would that all were as myself . . . unmarried"? 1 Cor 7:7. You quote the Bible, and then give a teaching radically opposed to the doctrine of that Bible.

1197. The Bible says that a man must leave father and mother and take a wife. Mt 19:5.

The sense is simply that one who does take a wife has a duty to her and to his children which is so binding that he must leave even his parents in order to fulfill it in his newly adopted state. But Christ gave a special blessing to those who would renounce father and mother, and the prospects of a wife and children also, for His sake. Mt 19:29 says, "And everyone that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting."

1198. St. Paul says that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife. 1 Tim 3:2.

St. Paul does not say that a Bishop must be the husband of a wife, but insists upon the expression "one wife." Had he meant that it was necessary to have a wife, he would have been violating the law himself. In the early Church, owing to the scarcity of single men eligible for the Priesthood, married men who wished to be ordained could be accepted provided they had not been married twice. Those presenting themselves must have been the husband of but one wife. That is all that the text means. Catholic Bishops and Priests do not violate that law. A law forbidding a man to have had more than one wife does not order him to have one; nor is it violated by a man who has never had a wife at all. However, as Christianity grew and vocations became more plentiful, single men only were accepted, and had to remain celibates, according to the advice of St. Paul which I have quoted.

1199. St. Paul says that if a man cannot rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church. 1 Tim 3:4.

That does not suggest that a Bishop must be married, but belongs to the same context as that which you have just quoted. If a man who has been married, but not to more than one wife, be chosen, he must be one who has been faithful and who has ruled well his own house. That discipline was most wise at a time when such a man could be chosen. But such discipline no longer holds.

1200. "Forbidding to marry," is given as one of the signs of false Churches.

The Catholic Church does not forbid people to marry. The vast majority of Catholics marry with the blessing of the Church. The text refers to people who declare all marriage evil, as did many early heretics. Marriage is not evil, nor is any Catholic forbidden to marry, as you would suggest. It is true that Priests may not marry. But no one can be obliged to become a Priest; in fact every one who is a Priest could have married instead of devoting his life to an ecclesiastical vocation, had he wished.

1201. Priests are only natural human beings. Why are they forbidden to marry?

Because they do not wish to be only natural. They wish to be supernatural. St. Paul was human, but he did not marry. And like St. Paul, Catholic Priests wish to centre their interests in Christ and share their hearts with no one else. Meantime, they are not forbidden to marry as human beings. They are forbidden as Priests. Prior to their choice of the Priesthood, every Priest could have chosen marriage instead had he wished.

1202. Are Priests different from other men?

As human beings — no; as called, not to the state of marriage, but to the Priesthood — yes. For this reason, while like all others who for one reason or another do not marry, they are obliged to avoid all sins against chastity; they also take upon themselves an additional obligation to do so under pain of sacrilege by vows of chastity offered to God.

1203. It is against nature to suggest that Priests are exempt from ordinary temptations.

No one suggests that they are exempt from ordinary temptations. But it is not against nature to rise above these temptations. It is one thing to be tempted; quite another to yield to the temptation. Anybody could avoid sin if never tempted. But the merit and glory of a Christian is to be tempted yet not to give way to the temptation. Priests undertake to resist such temptations with the help of God's grace.

1204. Protestants do not believe in your oath of celibacy. They know that Priests do not live up to it.

Upon what do you base that outrageous assertion?

1205. They are ordinary men, and as such cannot resist their natural inclinations.

Do you mean that no one with human nature can be pure and chaste? That every young couple entering matrimony can be quite sure that the other has led an evil immoral life up to that moment? If you do not mean that, do you mean that a young man in the world can lead a good life, but suddenly becomes corrupt when he gives himself to a life of closer union with God? Do you think that the devoting of oneself to a life of prayer and to spiritual things makes it much harder to live a good life than it was before? If a man wanted an immoral life he need not become a Priest in order to attain his desire; nor would he dream of taking a solemn vow of chastity for the sheer joy of making himself doubly guilty in breaking it. And do you, a Protestant, include in your indictment all unmarried Protestant ministers and celibate clergymen?

1206. Priests violate a fundamental law of nature ordering production of the race.

It is a fundamental law of nature that those who do exercise the functions of marriage should do so for the propagation of the race, and no Church fights against the contraceptionist as does the Catholic Church. But it is not a fundamental law of nature that every individual must marry. Many single people never get the chance. St. Paul also says that a single life for the love of God is the better thing, and the Catholic Church asks the better thing of her Priests so that they can be more free to devote themselves to the cares of all, that they may set a lofty example of self-restraint, and that they may more closely imitate Christ.

1207. You would be much happier if you were married.

If that were so, will you blame me for denying myself what you admit to be a happiness? However supernatural happiness more than compensates me for the loss of that natural happiness. No word of mine could make you think that I am gloomy or miserable. And I am sure that your estimate of me will make you admit that there is at least some girl in the world the happier for not having had me inflicted upon her as a husband.

1208. Why inflict such a burden upon human nature?

If anyone is to complain, let the Priests do the complaining, who have to endure the burden. And believe me, if Priests were left free to marry, very very few would ruin their work and influence by taking upon themselves the duties of married life with its necessary division of their interest from their ecclesiastical vocation. Priests do not want to be free to marry.

1209. Our Protestant ministers do not pretend to be better than other men — they marry. Is not this more honest?

Few Protestant ministers would thank you for that remark. There is, however, no need to pretend to be better. There is need to be better. Christ said to His Apostles, "You are the salt of the earth, but if the salt lose its savor! . . . You are the light of the world. So let your light shine before men that they may see your good works, etc." Your ministers may marry — but the Apostles did not, even as their Master did not. Of course it is more honest to marry than to live a life of un-chastity in an unmarried state. But provided one lives a clean and chaste life in the single state, thus imitating Christ, it is not more honest to marry.

1210. Do you condemn Protestant ministers for marrying?

Not for a moment. They break no commandment of their Church. It is true that God commands His Priests to remain single through the legislation of the Catholic Church. But her legislation in this matter has nothing to do with Protestant clergymen.

1211. If it is right for one set of ministers to be celibate, it must be wrong for others not to be celibate.

You might just as well say that, if it is right for me to obey one set of laws in America, it is wrong for another man to follow a totally different custom in China! And the Catholic Church differs much more from other religions than America differs from China.

1212. Priests ought to marry to set a higher example.

No one could give a higher moral example than Christ, and a Priest sets a higher moral example by not marrying. When he encourages young people to live pure and chaste lives in a single state he is not telling them to do what he is not obliged to do himself. He is unhampered by domestic cares so that he can go to the poorest mission for the love of God, and can attend those dying of contagious diseases without thought of carrying infection to wife and children. And it is certain that our people have more confidence in their Priests precisely because they are single men, above all in the Confessional. Even in the Greek Orthodox Church, it is a known fact that the people go to confession by preference to single Priests rather than to married Priests.

1213. Why more confidence in a single man as a Confessor than in a married man?

Because single men can give undivided attention to their duties, and have more time to study and know the law of God upon which they must base their advice. Then, too, people feel that one who has renounced earthly affections for the love of God has more opportunities of living a disinterested spiritual life, and that his words will be correspondingly more helpful. And last, but not least, a single man is not so likely to share his thoughts and worries with a better-half, or betray a confidence through indiscretion or inadvertence.

1214. How can Priests advise as to the duties of the married state when they have no practical experience of it?

"The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth." Mal 2:7. The married state is not exempt from God's laws, and the Priests must know those laws. Every Priest studies all the possible duties of marriage from a moral point of view during a long course of theology before he enters a Confessional at all. If you say that a Priest cannot explain those laws to people because he himself is not married, will you say that a trained lawyer has no right to explain the law of the land to a plumber concerning that individual's trade because he himself has never so much as soldered a jam-tin?

1215. Priests condemn prevention of life by birth-control yet prevent life by their celibacy!

Those who undertake the duties of married life are forbidden deliberate and artificial birth-prevention. Priests called, not to married life, but to a different state altogether, have neither the rights nor duties of the married state. There is a vast difference between preventing children by setting God's natural laws in operation yet frustrating their effects, and simply omitting to have children. No one is obliged to set the natural productive laws in operation. So, too, the obligation to pay bills is not violated by the man who has no bills. I may omit having creditors, but if I have them, I must not prevent them from receiving what is due to them. That should make it clear. Human beings may omit those actions which God intends to result in life, but if they exercise them and then prevent human life, they violate God's law.

Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: catholic; celibacy; radiorepliesvolone
 Who is like unto God?........ Lk:10:18:
 And he said to them: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven.

Historical Context of "Radio Replies"


By markomalley

If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.

It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.

While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.

And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.

A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.

Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.

The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.

 

 

 

 

Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C.

"I was brought up as a Protestant, probably with more inherited prejudices than most non-Catholics of these days.  My parents were Anglican and taught me the Angelican faith. My 'broad-minded' protestant teachers taught me to dislike the Catholic Church intensely. I later tried Protestantism in various other forms, and it is some thirty years since, in God's providence, I became a Catholic. As for the 'open, free, sincere worship' of a Protestant Church, I tasted it, but for me it proved in the end to be not only open, but empty; it was altogether too free from God's prescriptions."

Eventually, Leslie became a priest of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.

In 1928, Fr. Rumble began a one-hour 'Question Box' program on 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. radio on Sunday evenings that was heard all over Australia and New Zealand. For five years he answered questions on every subject imaginable that had been written to him from all over that part of the globe. His first show began with a classic introduction:

"Good evening, listeners all. For some time I have been promising to give a session dealing with questions of religion and morality, in which the listeners themselves should decide what is of interest to them. Such a session will commence next Sunday evening, and I invite you to send in any questions you wish on these subjects . . . So now I invite you, non-Catholics above all, to send in any questions you wish on religion, or morality, or the Catholic Church, and I shall explain exactly the Catholic position, and give the reasons for it. In fact I almost demand those questions. Many hard things have been said, and are still being said, about the Catholic Church, though no criminal, has been so abused, that she has a right to be heard. I do not ask that you give your name and address. A nom de plume will do. Call yourself Voltaire, Confucius, X.Y.Z., what you like, so long as you give indication enough to recognize your answer."

"By the summer of 1937, the first edition of Radio Replies was already in print in Australia, financed by Rt. Rev. Monsignor James Meany, P.P. - the director of Station 2SM of whom I am greatly indebted."

"I have often been mistaken, as most men at times. And it is precisely to make sure that I will not be mistaken in the supremely important matter of religion that I cling to a Church which cannot be mistaken, but must be right where I might be wrong. God knew that so many sincere men would make mistakes that He deliberately established an infallible Church to preserve them from error where it was most important that they should not go wrong."

Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty

I broadcast my radio program, the Catholic Radio Hour,  from St. Paul, Minnesota.

I was also carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on the Catholic Faith, Radio Replies proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. As many of us street preachers have learned, it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners, but what you get into their hands to read. The questions Fr. Rumble had to answer on the other side of the planet are same the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign."

I realized that this priest in Australia was doing exactly the same work I was doing here in St. Paul. Because of the success of his book, plus the delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe, I got in contact with him to publish a cheap American edition.  

It doesn't take long for the imagination to start thinking about how much we could actually do. We began the Radio Replies Press Society Publishing Company, finished the American edition of what was to be the first volume of Radio Replies, recieved the necessary imprimatur, and Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen agreed to write a preface. About a year after the publication of the first edition in Australia, we had the American edition out and in people's hands.

The book turned into a phenomena. Letters began pouring into my office from every corner of the United States; Protestant Publishing Houses are requesting copies for distribution to Protestant Seminaries; a few Catholic Seminaries have adopted it as an official textbook - and I had still never met Dr. Rumble in person.

To keep a long story short, we finally got a chance to meet, published volumes two and three of Radio Replies, printed a set of ten booklets on subjects people most often asked about, and a few other pamphlets on subjects of interest to us.

Fr. Carty died on May 22, 1964 in Connecticut.

"Firstly, since God is the Author of all truth, nothing that is definitely true can every really contradict anything else that is definitely true. Secondly, the Catholic Church is definitely true. It therefore follows that no objection or difficulty, whether drawn from history, Scripture, science, or philosophy, can provide a valid argument against the truth of the Catholic religion."



Biographies compiled from the introductions to Radio Replies, volumes 1, 2 and 3.

Source: www.catholicauthors.com

1 posted on 11/10/2009 9:08:44 PM PST by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fidelis; Atomic Vomit; MI; Sir_Humphrey; dsc; annalex; Citizen Soldier; bdeaner; CatQuilt; ...

Radio Replies Ping

FReep-mail me to get on or off

“The Radio Replies Ping-List”

ON / OFF


2 posted on 11/10/2009 9:09:39 PM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The Radio Replies Series: Volume One

Chapter One: God

Radio Replies Volume One: God’s Existence Known by Reason
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of God
Radio Replies Volume One: Providence of God and Problem of Evil

Chapter Two: Man

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of Man & Existence and Nature of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume One: Immortality of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume One: Destiny of the Soul & Freewill of Man

Chapter Three: Religion

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of Religion & Necessity of Religion

Chapter Four: The Religion of the Bible

Radio Replies Volume One: Natural Religion & Revealed Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Mysteries of Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Miracles
Radio Replies Volume One: Value of the Gospels
Radio Replies Volume One: Inspiration of the Gospels

Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 1]
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 2]
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 3]
Radio Replies Volume One: New Testament Difficulties

Chapter Five: The Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume One: The Religion of the Jews
Radio Replies Volume One: Truth of Christianity
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature and Necessity of Faith

Chapter Six: A Definite Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume One: Conflicting Churches
Radio Replies Volume One: Are All One Church?
Radio Replies Volume One: Is One Religion As Good As Another?
Radio Replies Volume One: The Fallacy of Indifference

Chapter Seven: The Failure of Protestantism

Radio Replies Volume One: Protestantism Erroneous
Radio Replies Volume One: Luther
Radio Replies Volume One: Anglicanism
Radio Replies Volume One: Greek Orthodox Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Wesley

Radio Replies Volume One: Baptists
Radio Replies Volume One: Adventists
Radio Replies Volume One: Salvation Army
Radio Replies Volume One: Witnesses of Jehovah
Radio Replies Volume One: Christian Science

Radio Replies Volume One: Theosophy
Radio Replies Volume One: Spiritualism
Radio Replies Volume One: Catholic Intolerance

Chapter Eight: The Truth of Catholicism

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of the Church
Radio Replies Volume One: The true Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Hierarchy of the Church
Radio Replies Volume One: The Pope
Radio Replies Volume One: Temporal Power

Radio Replies Volume One: Infallibility
Radio Replies Volume One: Unity
Radio Replies Volume One: Holiness
Radio Replies Volume One: Catholicity
Radio Replies Volume One: Apostolicity

Radio Replies Volume One: Indefectibility
Radio Replies Volume One: "Outside the Church no salvation"

Chapter Nine: The Catholic Church and the Bible

Radio Replies Volume One: Not opposed to the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: The reading of the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: Protestants and the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: "Bible Only" a false principle
Radio Replies Volume One: The necessity of Tradition
Radio Replies Volume One: The authority of the Catholic Church

Chapter Ten: The Church and Her Dogmas

Radio Replies Volume One: Dogmatic Truth
Radio Replies Volume One: Development of Dogma
Radio Replies Volume One: Dogma and Reason
Radio Replies Volume One: Rationalism
Radio Replies Volume One: The Holy Trinity

Radio Replies Volume One: Creation
Radio Replies Volume One: Angels
Radio Replies Volume One: Devils
Radio Replies Volume One: Man
Radio Replies Volume One: Sin

Radio Replies Volume One: Christ
Radio Replies Volume One: Mary
Radio Replies Volume One: Grace and salvation
Radio Replies Volume One: The Sacraments
Radio Replies Volume One: Baptism

Radio Replies Volume One: Confirmation
Radio Replies Volume One: Confession
Radio Replies Volume One: Holy Eucharist
Radio Replies Volume One: The Sacrifice of the Mass
Radio Replies Volume One: Holy Communion

Radio Replies Volume One: Priesthood
Radio Replies Volume One: Matrimony
Radio Replies Volume One: Divorce
Radio Replies Volume One: Extreme Unction
Radio Replies Volume One: Judgment

Radio Replies Volume One: The Millenium
Radio Replies Volume One: Hell
Radio Replies Volume One: Purgatory
Radio Replies Volume One: Prayer for the Dead
Radio Replies Volume One: Indulgences

Radio Replies Volume One: Heaven
Radio Replies Volume One: The Resurrection of the Body
Radio Replies Volume One: The General Judgment/The End of the World

Chapter Eleven: The Church in Her Moral Teachings

Radio Replies Volume One: Veracity/Mental Restriction
Radio Replies Volume One: Charity
Radio Replies Volume One: Ecclesiastical Censures/Liberty
Radio Replies Volume One: Index of Prohibited Books
Radio Replies Volume One: Persecution

Radio Replies Volume One: The Inquisition
Radio Replies Volume One: Jesuits/Catholic Intolerance
Radio Replies Volume One: Protestant services
Radio Replies Volume One: Freemasonry
Radio Replies Volume One: Cremation

Radio Replies Volume One: Gambling
Radio Replies Volume One: Prohibition of Drink
Radio Replies Volume One: Sunday Observance
Radio Replies Volume One: Fasting
Radio Replies Volume One: Celibacy

3 posted on 11/10/2009 9:11:10 PM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

I always thought the Greek word for celibacy was “Marriage”.

Was that wrong?


4 posted on 11/10/2009 9:12:50 PM PST by Pavegunner72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Matthew 18:11 - For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.


5 posted on 11/10/2009 9:13:45 PM PST by TheZMan (Just secede and get it over with. No love lost on either side. Cya.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

I didn’t see the part about St. Peter being married. Why was that left out?


6 posted on 11/10/2009 9:59:13 PM PST by boatbums (Pro-woman, pro-child, pro-life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pavegunner72

Whereas if you are homosexual, you can diddle as many children as you can find...

Some 10 years ago it was calculated that the average catholic priest molested 7 children. Most catholic priests molest zero, but those who did, molested many.

And remember Pope Leo, who was truly heroic in his lechery and corruption.


7 posted on 11/10/2009 10:40:22 PM PST by donmeaker (Invicto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pavegunner72

Only after you eat the wedding cake...


8 posted on 11/10/2009 10:41:01 PM PST by donmeaker (Invicto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Now, now, don’t bring up the logical inconsistencies in this “law”; that’ll be regarded as Catholic bashing!


9 posted on 11/10/2009 11:39:26 PM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

You wrote:

“I didn’t see the part about St. Peter being married. Why was that left out?”

Maybe because this section of the book is on Celibacy and no Marriage?


10 posted on 11/11/2009 4:41:28 AM PST by vladimir998 (Some public school grads actually believe BIGETOUS is a word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

Which Pope Leo? When most people say Pope Leo they mean Leo the Great, Leo I. He was rather saintly. Which Leo do you mean?


11 posted on 11/11/2009 4:43:09 AM PST by vladimir998 (Some public school grads actually believe BIGETOUS is a word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

You wrote:

“Now, now, don’t bring up the logical inconsistencies in this “law”; that’ll be regarded as Catholic bashing!”

There are no logical “inconsistencies” there.


12 posted on 11/11/2009 4:44:11 AM PST by vladimir998 (Some public school grads actually believe BIGETOUS is a word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

It is obvious from the New Testament and the history of the early church that presbyters and overseers were married (to a wife, not the Church). Institutionalized celibacy is not found in the Old or New Testaments. Yes, there are people in the Bible who did not get married, but there is no order or caste or group of people who are, by virtue of their position and duty, to remain celibate.

Now, there are practical advantages for priests to be single. They are more mobile and cost effective. If a church wishes to not have married men as priests for practical reasons, then so be it. Don’t try to dogmatize it.


13 posted on 11/11/2009 5:14:17 AM PST by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bobjam
"Don’t try to dogmatize it."

Who is doing that?

14 posted on 11/11/2009 7:36:46 AM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan
"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

Right and...??

15 posted on 11/11/2009 7:38:35 AM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Hmmm... The “foundation on which the Church was built”, Peter, was married. Most of the early Church fathers were married. Bishops were told they could only have one wife...

Then, several centuries later, it’s decided that priests and bishops cannot be married at all, because it’s God’s will and tradition and Scripture say so.

Yep, no inconsistencies there!


16 posted on 11/11/2009 8:00:11 AM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

You wrote:

“Hmmm... The “foundation on which the Church was built”, Peter, was married.”

Peter was married. We have no idea if he was still married when Jesus called him. And we don’t know if he continued to live a conjugal life with his wife after he was made a priest. And, as always, Jesus is our first role model when discussing the priesthood since he is the High Priest and He was celibate.

“Most of the early Church fathers were married. Bishops were told they could only have one wife...”

But we know that many early Christians stopped having conjugal relations with their wives when called by the Church to hold office in teh Church.

“Then, several centuries later, it’s decided that priests and bishops cannot be married at all, because it’s God’s will and tradition and Scripture say so.”

No. Once there was a Christian community to which people could actually be BORN INTO rather than just brought into through baptism as adult married men, the ideal of the celibate priest (Christ is the model don’t forget) was more easily realized. That’s why Pope Benedict is doing what he is doing with the Anglicans. Those Anglican clergymen who are already married will be ordained as married men, but the next generation apparently will be expected to have celibate priests.

“Yep, no inconsistencies there!”

Right, none at all. The ideal was always the ideal. And still is.


17 posted on 11/11/2009 8:27:19 AM PST by vladimir998 (Some public school grads actually believe BIGETOUS is a word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bobjam

Celebacy is a valuble discipline, as you note. Not a dogma.

Freegards


18 posted on 11/11/2009 8:37:54 AM PST by Ransomed (Son of Ransomed Says Keep the Faith!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

Valuable even. sheesh


19 posted on 11/11/2009 8:47:34 AM PST by Ransomed (Son of Ransomed Says Keep the Faith!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

” ‘Don’t try to dogmatize it.’
Who is doing that?”

It appears this author is. Rather than defending it based on its practical advantage to how the Roman Catholic Church operates, the author attempts to defend it theologically. This method is fundamentally weak and invites attacks.


20 posted on 11/11/2009 9:26:01 AM PST by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
What was the name of St. Peter's wife and why did you omit the following from your post?

"Then Peter answering, said to Him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed Thee: what therefore shall we have? And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of His majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for My name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first." Matthew 19:27-30

"Then Peter said: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed Thee. Who said to them: Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive much more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." Luke 18:28-30

Emphasis added to highlight the fallacy of your post.

21 posted on 11/11/2009 11:10:53 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bobjam
Institutionalized celibacy is not found in the Old or New Testaments.

A conclusion reached by a poor student of Scripture.

22 posted on 11/11/2009 11:14:19 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
Peter, was married.

At one time. Scripture never mentions his wife.

Most of the early Church fathers were married.

Source?

Bishops were told they could only have one wife.

St. Paul's counsel to Timothy was that if he selected married men as Bishops, they could have only been married once. There was no mandate from St. Paul, a celibate himself, that married men must be selected as Bishops. In addition, St. Paul instructs Timothy that said men who serve as Bishops must be chaste. One of the definitions of chaste is celibate and celibacy within marriage means abstaining from conjugal relations.

Then, several centuries later, it’s decided that priests and bishops cannot be married at all, because it’s God’s will and tradition and Scripture say so.

This is indisputable proof that you know little to nothing on the topic being discussed.

Suggest you do some reading, unless of course you enjoy coming across as an ignoramus. Which based on your posts here is, no doubt, one of life's pleasures for you.

Yep, no inconsistencies there!

Further proof of the intellectually challenged.

23 posted on 11/11/2009 11:29:48 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

Then what group of people are called to a life of being single?


24 posted on 11/11/2009 12:52:49 PM PST by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
I omitted nothing from my post but the author of the OP sure did. Have you not read:

Matthew 8:14-15 (New International Version)

14When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. 15He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him.

Luke 4:38 (New International Version) Jesus left the synagogue and went to the home of Simon. Now Simon's mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked Jesus to help her.

Was there another Simon Peter traveling with Jesus and the other disciples?

Do you suppose Jesus was saying that anyone who would follow him should literally abandon his family? If he meant it that way why did he say:

Mark 7:11-13 (New International Version)

11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Mark 10:19 (New International Version)

19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.

Jesus had to be speaking about a totally dedicated state of mind that would not anyone hinder them from serving the Lord. Would Jesus contradict himself? He also said:

Luke 12:53

They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Luke 14:26

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

Paul said: Ephesians 6:2

"Honor (not hate) your father and mother"—which is the first commandment with a promise—

Would Paul contradict Jesus under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

He also said:

1 Timothy 5:8 (King James Version)

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

I think it's pretty obvious that it is not my post that contains the fallacy. Only those that try to force a meaning to scripture based on their preconceived ideas especially when it is so not necessary.

25 posted on 11/11/2009 6:55:44 PM PST by boatbums (Pro-woman, pro-child, pro-life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I would go with the homosexual Leo X.

The otherfun pope was Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, again in 1045 and finally 1047–1048) was said to have conducted a very dissolute life during his papacy.[34] Accused by Bishop Benno of Placenta of “many vile adulteries and murders.”[35][36] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues to “his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.”[37] It prompted St. Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, St. Peter Damian recorded that Benedict “feasted on immorality” and that he was “a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest”, accusing Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and was said to have sponsored orgies.[38] In May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage, selling his office for 1,500 pounds of gold.

Thanks Wikipedia!


26 posted on 11/11/2009 9:18:34 PM PST by donmeaker (Invicto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bobjam

Pope John XII (955–963) (deposed by Conclave) was said to have turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano into a brothel and was accused of adultery, fornication, and incest (Source: Patrologia Latina).[27] The monk chronicler Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that he “liked to have a collection of women”. According to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis[28], “they testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father’s concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse.” According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, John XII was “a Christian Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he held”.[29]He was killed by a jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery with the man’s wife.


27 posted on 11/11/2009 9:20:10 PM PST by donmeaker (Invicto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

You wrote:

“I would go with the homosexual Leo X.”

Leo X was not a homosexual.

“Thanks Wikipedia!”

And no one who wants to get history right should rely on Wikipedia. Anti-Catholics, however, use it all the time.


28 posted on 11/12/2009 4:26:33 AM PST by vladimir998 (Some public school grads actually believe BIGETOUS is a word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

You wrote:

“Pope John XII (955–963) (deposed by Conclave) was said to have turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano into a brothel and was accused of adultery, fornication, and incest (Source: Patrologia Latina).[27]”

This is an example of why people interested in getting history right cannot rely on Wikipedia.

1) We know that John XII lived a scandalous life, but there is every indication that the stories about him and his behavior became rediculously exagerrated.

2) Patrologia Latina is over 200 volumes long. How can it be listed simply as “Source”? Source where? Which volume for crying out loud?

3) Malachi Martin is then listed as a source. Martin, a one time Catholic priest, became a sedevacantist bishop apparently and made his living from publishing books about supposed scandals in the Vatican (which was obviously self-serving).


29 posted on 11/12/2009 4:34:27 AM PST by vladimir998 (Some public school grads actually believe BIGETOUS is a word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

Phony stories about Leo X have been circulated for centuries. Here’s one:

“It was Pope Leo X who made the most infamous and damaging statement about Christianity in the history of the Church. His declaration revealed to the world papal knowledge of the Vatican’s false presentation of Jesus Christ and unashamedly exposed the puerile nature of the Christian religion. At a lavish Good Friday banquet in the Vatican in 1514, and in the company of “seven intimates” (Annales Ecclesiastici, Caesar Baronius, Folio Antwerp, 1597, tome 14), Leo made an amazing announcement that the Church has since tried hard to invalidate. Raising a chalice of wine into the air, Pope Leo toasted: “How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors.””

Here’s the truth:

“So where did this quote originate? Skeptics claim Leo said this to a member of his entourage who later attributed
the quote to him. However, the quote has now been attributed to the 16th century satirist and playwright, John
Bale. John Bale joined the Protestant movement after becoming disenchanted with the corruption of the Catholic
church. He wrote many parodies in which he openly expressed his disdain of papal abuse. One of his satirical
works known as The Pageant of the Popes is the actual source of the quote in question (paraphrased in modern
English for the reader’s convenience):

“For on a time when a cardinal Bembus did move a question out of the Gospel, the Pope gave him a very
contemptuous answer saying: All ages can testify enough how profitable that fable of Christ hath been
to us and our company.” (Pageant of the Popes Page 179)

CONCLUSION: This quote is from a fictional 16th century work written as a parody. Presenting this as a
legitimate quote would be as absurd as attributing a line from a Shakespearian play to the real life character
whom an actor depicted.”


30 posted on 11/12/2009 4:47:32 AM PST by vladimir998 (Some public school grads actually believe BIGETOUS is a word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I figure that Wikipedia is close enough to backing for blog posts.


31 posted on 11/12/2009 7:52:31 AM PST by donmeaker (Invicto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

Close enough only counts in checkers and hand grenades...isn’t that how the saying goes?


32 posted on 11/12/2009 12:36:22 PM PST by vladimir998 (Some public school grads actually believe BIGETOUS is a word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

horseshoes and hand grenades....But tactical nuclear weapons are pretty good with a close miss too.


33 posted on 11/12/2009 8:33:20 PM PST by donmeaker (Invicto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

So how corrupt would a pope have to be before the institution he represents loses its authority? How many children diddled? How many illegimate children before the “Infailible in faith and morals” is no longer valid?


34 posted on 11/12/2009 8:35:46 PM PST by donmeaker (Invicto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

You wrote:

“So how corrupt would a pope have to be before the institution he represents loses its authority?”

No pope’s evils could corrupt Christ’s Church because Christ is the founder and not the pope. Just as Christ is always holy, so is the Church - no matter how inadequate the earthly leader of the Church is.

“How many children diddled? How many illegimate children before the “Infailible in faith and morals” is no longer valid?”

No amount of sin on the part of a pope would stop the Holy Spirit from accomplishing His work. The pope’s infallibility has to do with his office and the negative protection of the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with his personal behavior. That’s why even the worst popes never changed Church doctrine, never taught ever as if it were the faith and never violated papal infallibility.


35 posted on 11/13/2009 4:13:45 AM PST by vladimir998 (Some public school grads actually believe BIGETOUS is a word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Related: 5 Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy and How to Refute Them
36 posted on 11/14/2009 2:16:11 AM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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