Skip to comments.Radio Replies First Volume - Celibacy
Posted on 11/10/2009 9:08:44 PM PST by GonzoII
Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
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.
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
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
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: 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: 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
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: 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: 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
I always thought the Greek word for celibacy was “Marriage”.
Was that wrong?
Matthew 18:11 - For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
I didn’t see the part about St. Peter being married. Why was that left out?
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.
Only after you eat the wedding cake...
Now, now, don’t bring up the logical inconsistencies in this “law”; that’ll be regarded as Catholic bashing!
“I didnt 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?
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?
“Now, now, dont bring up the logical inconsistencies in this law; thatll be regarded as Catholic bashing!”
There are no logical “inconsistencies” there.
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.
Who is doing that?
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!
“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, its decided that priests and bishops cannot be married at all, because its Gods 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.
Celebacy is a valuble discipline, as you note. Not a dogma.
Valuable even. sheesh
” ‘Dont 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.
"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.
A conclusion reached by a poor student of Scripture.
At one time. Scripture never mentions his wife.
Most of the early Church fathers were married.
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, its decided that priests and bishops cannot be married at all, because its Gods 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.
Then what group of people are called to a life of being single?
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:
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."
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sistersyes, even his own lifehe 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.
I would go with the homosexual Leo X.
The otherfun pope was Pope Benedict IX (10321044, again in 1045 and finally 10471048) was said to have conducted a very dissolute life during his papacy. Accused by Bishop Benno of Placenta of “many vile adulteries and murders.” 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.” 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. In May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage, selling his office for 1,500 pounds of gold.
Pope John XII (955963) (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). 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, “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”.He was killed by a jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery with the man’s wife.
“I would go with the homosexual Leo X.”
Leo X was not a homosexual.
And no one who wants to get history right should rely on Wikipedia. Anti-Catholics, however, use it all the time.
“Pope John XII (955963) (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).”
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).
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.”
I figure that Wikipedia is close enough to backing for blog posts.
Close enough only counts in checkers and hand grenades...isn’t that how the saying goes?
horseshoes and hand grenades....But tactical nuclear weapons are pretty good with a close miss too.
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?
“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.