Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Clerical Celibacy Rebuttal - Extremely Short Form
10 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
Amen :)
ReplyDeleteLike the ban on bowing to carved images, this teaching was only for the Old Covenant, and was made obsolete by the Incarnation...
ReplyDelete(or so would the RC semi-Marcionites say.)
I suppose they might try to argue something like that.
ReplyDeleteRebuttal: extremely short form:
ReplyDelete1Cor. 7:38 he who gives his own daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.
Answer to the rebuttal:
ReplyDelete1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
And what...? You don't like Paul's judgement?
ReplyDeleteActually, that's the wrong answer, Orthodox. The correct answer is:
ReplyDelete1 Corinthians 7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
But a good reason you didn't provide that is that Paul's judgment relates not to something having moral value but prudential value.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan,
ReplyDeleteEven if everything you just said in response to orthodox was right, and Paul was only providing prudential (and not moral) advice, are you assuming he didn't know about the existence of Proverbs 18:22?
It seems that Paul is quite comfortable saying despite whatever you read Proverbs 18:22 to say that celibacy is desirable: eunuchs for the Kingdom, and whatnot.
But in any case, Catholics absolutely affirm the value of marriage, sex, children, the whole thing. We also think that food is a glorious gift from God, and yet that some are called to fast. The entire idea is that we're offering up something good. In this, it's similar to the Nazarites in the Old Testament.
And Viisaus, semi-Marcionites? I suppose any stick is good enough to beat the Church these days, but this one is especially bizarre. We've got a priesthood, we read the Old Testament in nearly every Mass, you rarely see a Catholic stand-alone New Testament, and so on. A huge number of Catholic teachings are explained with reference to both the New and Old Testament: the Eucharist and Passover, the priesthood and Korah's rebelling, etc. The normal criticism is that we're stuck in the Old Testament... now we're getting criticized for not valuing it enough? If you knew anything about what the Marcionites actually taught, you'd realize how foolish that comparison is.
"Even if everything you just said in response to orthodox was right, and Paul was only providing prudential (and not moral) advice, are you assuming he didn't know about the existence of Proverbs 18:22?"
ReplyDeletea) No, I'm not assuming that.
b) Is there any doubt that he's not providing moral advice?
I'm saying that even prudential advice can't contradict morality, so for Paul to be able to say, "celibacy is desirable," he can't be arguing (even prudentially) against morality.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church doesn't say you're *less moral* if you marry, and clerical celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma - about 20% of Catholic priests are married, if memory serves (given the large number of married priests outside the Latin Rite, plus a handful of Latin Rite married converts). It's all a matter of prudential judgment.