Thursday, March 11, 2010

Another Consequence of Forbidding Marriage to Clergy

We have previously noted that one consequence of forbidding marriage to clergy is that one gets a higher ratio of homosexual clergyman (link to brief discussion). Another consequence is that priests do to nuns the kinds of things that Maria Monk reported (link to Vatican's acknowledgment that this happens). The report makes Steve Hays' satire (link) seem not so far from the mark.

These abuses take place in part because of Rome's unscriptural policy of mandatory clerical celibacy, as Roman Catholic priest and former theologian, Hans Küng, agrees (link). Such a policy is a serious error and is contrary to Scripture, though we acknowledge that it is not an error as to an essential doctrine. If this were the worst error that Rome has, she would still be a true church.

There are, however, many other and worse errors in Rome's teaching. While Rome's gospel that involves subjection to the Roman Pontiff and veneration of Mary may not injure the bodies of its nuns, it is something that does far more serious damage - it harms their souls. The way of salvation is through trust in Christ alone for salvation.

(Update: Cardinal Schönborn appears to agree with Hans Küng and this blog)

-TurretinFan

52 comments:

Kelly said...

Oh...would that people who comment actually know what they are talking about...

``and former theologian, Hans Kung...``

Former? Pray tell, what's he doing now?

I agree that the policy seems to be unscriptural. If it were, that alone should be enough to make is objectionable. The rest of this critique is typical nonsense...

Turretinfan said...

"Former theologian" in the sense that the Vatican has rescinded his authority to teach Catholic theology.

I notice that your policy of drive-by insults continues. I wish it wouldn't.

Turretinfan said...

And to avoid further rounds of insults, perhaps Kelly should educate himself by checking out this article (link). Otherwise, the irony meter ("Oh...would that people who comment actually know what they are talking about...") is liable to spike.

Viisaus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Viisaus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Viisaus said...

Isaac Taylor thus described the harmful spiritual effect of recklessly exalting the value of celibacy:

http://www.archive.org/details/ancientchristia05taylgoog

"Ancient Christianity and the Doctrines of Oxford Tracts for the Times", volume I

p. 184

"But now there would be no end to our citations, were we to adduce all, or a third of those passages from the fathers in which celibacy, when held to in a strict manner, is spoken of as a mode of life differing from that of the angels in heaven, neither in purity, nor in security; and only so far in felicity, as resulted from the conditions of mortality: 'drop the flesh, and then the monk, or the virgin nun, is at once a seraph!' That no such passage might be produced, I will not affirm, but certainly I have not met with so much as one, in which the inviolate virgin is spoken of as being, LIKE OTHERS, even like any repentant magdalene, dependent altogether for salvation upon the vicarious merits of the Saviour. Allowing however that some such passage might be hunted up, yet assuredly it is not the usual style of the great church writers of the nicene age. Certainly this way of putting the case, in relation to the monk and virgin, is not characteristic of 'catholic teaching.'

Catholic teaching runs in a contrary direction, and the clear import of it is to this effect — That to have exhorted a 'spotless nun,' in her last hour, to look to the atonement, as the only ground of hope for a dying sinner (or saint) would have been a very inappropriate, unseemly, and even offensive sort of interference with the honour and comfort she was entitled to: and would have been an insult, like thrusting an obolus into the palm of a Croesus."

Viisaus said...

Taylor, p. 185

"But how different is the style of the doctors of the nicene and following age! Then, a spiritual aristocracy had grown up within the Church; and those of this class who could profess that their celestial escutcheons were shamed by no spot — these, if never plainly told that they stood above the range of the gospel scheme of salvation, were seldom, if ever, told that they could claim no exemption, and were entitled to no prerogative, and must be saved, if at all, even as others. What then! after all her conflicts with nature, all her tears and fastings, must the spotless virgin, the spouse of Christ, submit at the last to the humiliation of standing along with the married, on the same level, needing mercy even as others? alas! if it comes to this, has she not been driving a poor trade?

Those can know very little of the human heart who can believe that monks and nuns, talked to as they constantly were by their spiritual guides, and told that, because virgins in body and soul, they stood as near to God as flesh and blood can stand — that these victims of delusion could, nevertheless, be humbly and contritely relying, as sinners, upon the propitiatory work of Christ. It was not so in fact; no such spirit breathes through the extant records of monkish piety: here and there we gladly catch a faint gleam of sunshine, as in a wintry and watery day; but monkish piety, on the whole, was nothing better than what we must expect to meet with, as the proper fruit of this 'catholic teaching.'"

louis said...

Viisaus, maybe I'm especially dense today, but I don't follow that passage. Could you please summarize? Did the fathers exalt or not exalt celibacy?

Viisaus said...

Post-Nicene fathers especially exalted celibacy way too much, and they were WRONG about it.

The celibacy issue is actually a case par excellence where we must simply decide whether to follow clear Biblical teaching or "the consensus of fathers."

Taylor, pp. 393-394

"On this point, immensely important as it is, the authority of Scripture, and that of the fathers, are directly at issue; — the one authority explicitly enjoining the very thing which the other discourages, condemns, and at length absolutely forbids. There is no middle ground to be taken here: there is no room to evade the practical question; for it touches the main pillar of the ecclesiastical edifice. Either it is good that a bishop should be a husband and a father; or it is not good. The nicene church, as well in theory as in practice, decides that it is not good; nor could it, consistently with its principles, come to any other decision. — In a word, the first principle of nicene Christianity is found to be subversive, as well in theory as in practice, of apostolical Christianity. The two systems diverge from their starting points, and get wider asunder at every step of their course."

kelly said...

An insult is different from an evaluation.

By commenting publicly on a matter, you open yourself to criticism.

I have detailed those criticisms in the past, and you have not altered your style. As a result, I'm simply going right to the conclusion.

I suppose, however, that you rather prove my point. You show a lack of precision in speaking of Kung in a way that someone familiar wouldn't, and then you compound that imprecision by supposing that I am insulting rather than evaluating...

Turretinfan said...

"An insult is different from an evaluation."

Some evaluations are expressed in insulting terms.

"By commenting publicly on a matter, you open yourself to criticism."

No kidding.

"I have detailed those criticisms in the past, and you have not altered your style."

Your criticism lack merit. This is one reason your criticisms take the form of assertions rather than demonstrations.

"As a result, I'm simply going right to the conclusion."

One wonders if you think you have taken a different approach on other occasions. But I may be able to help you avoid continuing your drive-by insult approach, perhaps by simply removing comments that don't contribute meaningfully to the discussion, such as your comments above.

"I suppose, however, that you rather prove my point."

As demonstrated above, you proved your point in an ironic way.

"You show a lack of precision in speaking of Kung in a way that someone familiar wouldn't, and then you compound that imprecision by supposing that I am insulting rather than evaluating..."

Again, more fallacious assertions. I've already demonstrated familiarity with Kung, and your comments suggest you haven't even bothered to educate yourself before repeating your assertions.

Let me put this more forcefully - if you are not willing to contribute meaningfully to the discussion, just go away.

- TurretinFan

louis said...

"No kidding."

:) At least you still have a sense of humor about it.

Viisaus,

You are the king of many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore. Where do you find this stuff?

Greg said...

Forbidding to marry= Doctrine of demons. Plain and simple.

Viisaus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Viisaus said...

louis:

Behold the Aladdin's treasure cave of ancient (and not quite so ancient) wisdom, brought back to life by the wonders of modern technology - the Internet Archive:

http://www.archive.org/

New additions are constantly being made here. Just search for some old edition that might particularly interest you.

It's like YouTube for smart people fond of classics. :)

Anonymous said...

You have officially gone off your rocker.

The rate of sex abuse in Protestant Churches over the past 50 years is just about exactly the rate of Catholic Churches.

In the United States, 50% of men arrested for sex abuse of minors are married men.

Source

Source Two

You people are spitting on a practice that has biblical precedent.

TFan,

Occasionally in the past you've posted good material. Now you are just another Steve Hays.

Anonymous said...

PS.

Celibacy is not 'forced' on anybody. There is a spiritual gift called celibacy. Jesus was celibate. Paul said that it was good to be celibate for the kingdom. The Latin rite of the Catholic Church as a matter of discipline has limited the priesthood to men professing to have this spiritual gift for over a thousand years.

I know dozens of priests. Not one of them would say that they were 'forced' to do anything.

Seeing 'arguments' like the ones presented on this blog lately give me that much more confidence in the Catholic Church.

I am surprised that the most prolific "Reformed' bloggers like Steve Hays and you rely on this kind level of argument now? I am surprised by I am also encouraged.

You and or Mr Hays would not be spending so much time crafting weak arguments against the spiritual gifts given to the Church by God (if you believe what Paul says) if the Catholic Church did not scare you.

I think that you need to believe the arguments that you make so that you can justify your being in schism. As long as you think your mother is a mean old witch you'll be content staying away from her house.

All good priests and holy priests that have passed onto the heavenly Kingdom, pray for Turretinfan...

Turretinfan said...

"You have officially gone off your rocker."

A scholarly priest and a Cardinal of your church agree with me.

"The rate of sex abuse in Protestant Churches over the past 50 years is just about exactly the rate of Catholic Churches."

That's a lie. I'm not saying you made this up, but someone who reported it to you, did. You need to investigate these sorts of claims more closely.

"In the United States, 50% of men arrested for sex abuse of minors are married men."

In the U.S. far more than 50% of the men are married. So, the fact that unmarried make up 50% (and I'm simply assuming this is a fact, though I have no evidence for it) means that they are disproportionally represented and consequently more likely (again, assuming the arrest rates are a good reflection of the abuse rates) to commit such an act.

And, of course, in this case the issue is rape of adult women. Do you really think that such rape occurs with equal frequency among single and married men? (I'm told that the number is about 22% married men for that offense.)

"You people are spitting on a practice that has biblical precedent."

The Biblical precedent is set forth in Paul's epistles, in which he describes as the norm that both elders and deacons are to be married with children.

Paul himself is thankful for his own gift, but he does not suggest that it should be mandatory for anyone else.

"Occasionally in the past you've posted good material. Now you are just another Steve Hays."

Steve Hays posts lots of good material.

"Celibacy is not 'forced' on anybody."

It's forced on everyone who wants to be a priest (in the Latin rite), and on everyone who wants to be a bishop.

"There is a spiritual gift called celibacy."

Yes, there is. Not everyone has it, and (as noted above) God doesn't promise that everyone who has it will continue in it.

"Jesus was celibate."

Yes.

"Paul said that it was good to be celibate for the kingdom."

He was careful to qualify that comment.

"The Latin rite of the Catholic Church as a matter of discipline has limited the priesthood to men professing to have this spiritual gift for over a thousand years."

They limited deacons in a similar way for a long time. Perhaps this ancient but ungodly practice will also pass eventually.

[cont'd in part 2]

Turretinfan said...

[cont'd from part 1]

"I know dozens of priests. Not one of them would say that they were 'forced' to do anything."

They would have to admit that the vow of celibacy is a mandatory vow for the Roman Catholic priesthood.

"Seeing 'arguments' like the ones presented on this blog lately give me that much more confidence in the Catholic Church."

I cited a priest and a Cardinal of your church. You selectively choose what you want to hear, because your devotion to your church is one that is based on ignoring the facts, whether they are presented by me or your own spiritual leaders.

"I am surprised that the most prolific "Reformed' bloggers like Steve Hays and you rely on this kind level of argument now? I am surprised by I am also encouraged."

You're encouraged when we point out that there are serious consequences to the fact that your church has deviated from the church? But don't worry, these sorts of posts occupy a tiny fraction of the arguments against the many errors of your church.

"You and or Mr Hays would not be spending so much time crafting weak arguments against the spiritual gifts given to the Church by God (if you believe what Paul says) if the Catholic Church did not scare you."

Romanism leads souls to hell. That's why I oppose it. One way that people see this is by seeing that the system of Romanism does not reform its practice according to the word of God, even when it is plagued by scandal that is caused by its unbiblical positions.

The primary issue (as the post pointed out) is not the raped nuns that result from Rome's failure to honor God's word, but the many lost souls who confuse Romanism for authentic Christianity.

"I think that you need to believe the arguments that you make so that you can justify your being in schism. As long as you think your mother is a mean old witch you'll be content staying away from her house."

As between God and the Roman pontiff, I choose God. If you want to use negative analogies about that, who can stop you? Yet it is better to obey God, as the Scriptures and the apostles testify.

"All good priests and holy priests that have passed onto the heavenly Kingdom, pray for Turretinfan..."

Your attempts to communicate with the dead are impious. They can't hear your prayers - or at least you have no good reason to think they can. You ought to offer religious prayer to God only.

-TurretinFan

louis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
louis said...

I think there is a difference between being single in the way that Paul means and taking a vow of singleness. Paul says it's good to be single in order to devote yourself to the Lord, but this is something that can last either for a season or for a lifetime, however circumstances turn out. Paul, I think, is simply saying that a man does not have to seek marriage, that it's good to be single if you can bear it. And, if it turns out that you can't, then get married, for that is good too, and in fact it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Nowhere does Paul encourage the taking of a vow of singleness, where a person swears an oath to remain single for life, no matter what, on pain of breaking their vow to God. This, it seems to me, is to presume on what you think God's purpose is for you in life, and to put yourself in a position of great and unnecessaary temptation.

I think this is another instance of the Roman church twisting the biblical message. Nobody would deny that singleness is good for some people, and God bless them if they have that gift, but Romanists have used that simple message as an excuse to forbid marriage and to elevate celibacy as something extra holy in and of itself.

And it IS forbidding marriage. It is mandatory for everyone who would be called to ministry in the priesthood, not just for some special group of priests who may have that gift. And it is on par with the Romanist pattern. In the middle ages (a time when they could get away with this sort of thing), they so construed the laws of consanguinity and such that it was difficult for some people in small viallages to find anyone to marry.

The spirit behind these regulations is identified, I believe, in 1 Tim. 4:1-5 and Col. 2:20-23.

steve said...

Anonymous said...

"Celibacy is not 'forced' on anybody. There is a spiritual gift called celibacy."

From what I've read, the traditional way in which the priesthood was generally supplied is that Catholics used to have large families, and having sons to spare, one son (e.g. the firstborn) was designated for the priesthood.

That wasn't a "gift" of celibacy. That was a social convention. The son who went into the priesthood didn't have an inner calling from God. He was just a normal guy whom his parents dedicated to the priesthood when he was born.

Did some men enter the priesthood of their own initiative? Sure. But that's hardly a universal practice.

A 19-year-old boy doesn't know at that age whether or not he has the "gift of celibacy."

"Jesus was celibate."

Jesus came to die. Not to get married and start a family.

Moreover, Jesus wasn't just an ordinary man.

"I know dozens of priests. Not one of them would say that they were 'forced' to do anything."

You may know *of* them, but do you really *know* them? After all, a number of priests lead double lives. One face in public, a very different face in private.

Turretinfan said...

Some of those canonical prohibitions on marriage have the same effect today (although small communities tend to ignore them, and apparently there is now a canonical provision that lets the local bishop waive them). Of course, some canon lawyer might disagree with my reading, but the calculation of the 4th line means that marriage between 3rd cousins is still technically prohibited (interestingly, I've seen folks claim that only marriage between 1st cousins is prohibited).

In many small, rural communities, marriage among 2nd and 3rd cousins is quite common, and in many places marriage among 1st cousins is legal.

Anonymous said...

You may know *of* them, but do you really *know* them? After all, a number of priests lead double lives. One face in public, a very different face in private.

Do you really *know* anybody other than yourself. Because, many human beings lead double lives. One face in public, a very different in private.

But, I bet that Steve Hays does not sin in private...

Really? This passes for good and honest argument these days?

The sin of a priest doesn’t necessarily prove that he never should have taken a vow of celibacy, any more than the sin of a married man or woman proves that he or she never should have gotten married. It is possible for us to fall short of our own true calling.

The bottom line is that neither of you believe what Paul writes about being celibate for the Kingdom of Heaven.

"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion."
(1 Cor 7:8-9)

The truth is that some people professing the gift of celibacy have not had self control. But the flipside is that the vast majority have indeed had the gift that Paul describes and kept their vow.

But why are you guys focusing on celibacy? This is not the only vow a priest makes. Why not chide them for taking a vow of poverty as well? Or give us grief because priests take vows of obedience?

"I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another"
(1 Cor 7:6-7)

What he said is a 'concession' is that each man should have one spouse and 'conjugal rights.'
(1 Cor 7:3)

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

Your argument is not with me. It's not with Catholicism or Orthodoxy (which limits the office of bishop to celibate males). Its with God.

steve said...

Anonymous said...

"But the flipside is that the vast majority have indeed had the gift that Paul describes and kept their vow."

Is that a fact? Yet a few sentences earlier you conceded the following:

"Do you really *know* anybody other than yourself. Because, many human beings lead double lives. One face in public, a very different in private."

Therefore, by your own admission, you're in no position to say what percentage of priests (or nuns) have kept their vow of celibacy.

Thanks for contradicting yourself in the space of a single comment.

steve said...

BTW, why are you quoting Scripture? Does this mean you affirm the perspicuity of Scripture?

Anonymous said...

BTW, why are you quoting Scripture? Does this mean you affirm the perspicuity of Scripture?

Since you quote ECFs I guess that means that you do not believe that scripture is perspicuious.

Since you subscribe to some Reformed confession this means that you don't believe that scripture is perspicious.

Childish isn't it?

steve said...

Anonymous said...

"Since you quote ECFs I guess that means that you do not believe that scripture is perspicuious."

Where did I quote ECFs?

Moreover, quoting them doesn't mean I regard them as authoritative–even if I were to quote them.

You're confusing perspicuity with sufficiency. And you also show know understanding of either in Protestant theology.

"Since you subscribe to some Reformed confession this means that you don't believe that scripture is perspicious."

Because Scripture is perspicuous, we can summarize and systematize various Biblical doctrines in Reformed confessions.

"Childish isn't it?"

Yes, the level at which you reason is childish. That's one thing we agree on.

And you also dodge the issue. Why do you quote Scripture to prooftext a Catholic practice unless you believe that Scripture is perspicuous?

Anonymous said...

Steve Hays,

And you also dodge the issue. Why do you quote Scripture to prooftext a Catholic practice unless you believe that Scripture is perspicuous?

Why do you need a summary of what scripture teaches in the form of a confession if you believe that scripture is perspicuous?

Why do you constantly argue with Lutherans and Anabaptists on your blog about the doctrines of scripture if scripture is perspicuous?

For the record, believing that scripture is without error does not mean that scripture does not need an interpreter and that the promise of Christ to His Church is still valid.

I am quoting scripture not in a vacuum as you do but with the Church.

Your interpreter is Steve Hays. Mine is the Church.

Turretinfan said...

"Why do you need a summary of what scripture teaches in the form of a confession if you believe that scripture is perspicuous?"

Who says we "need" it?

"Why do you constantly argue with Lutherans and Anabaptists on your blog about the doctrines of scripture if scripture is perspicuous?"

You seem confused about what the doctrine of perspicuity entails. It doesn't entail that everyone who reads Scripture agrees that it means [x], nor that every doctrine of Scripture is equally clear.

"For the record, believing that scripture is without error does not mean that scripture does not need an interpreter and that the promise of Christ to His Church is still valid."

You have been trying to use Scripture. Are you admitting that we are able to authentically interpret Scripture? If not, please explain your reason for providing us with quotations from something you claim we can't understand?

"I am quoting scripture not in a vacuum as you do but with the Church."

Nobody quotes anything in a vacuum.

"Your interpreter is Steve Hays. Mine is the Church."

You are asking Steve Hays to interpret Scripture when you quote it to him. So, actually, Steve Hays is your interpreter, vis-a-vis this conversation.

-TurretinFan

Anonymous said...

All I am doing is demonstrating that celibacy is not foreign to scripture and that scripture calls celibacy 'good.'

If you want to tell me that celibacy is not good and then tell me that scripture is perspicuous than I guess this is just your admission that scripture isn't actually perspicuous because if scripture was perspicuous than you wouldn't have to try to convince me that the way I understand these scriptures is wrong and you are right.

Turretinfan said...

"All I am doing is demonstrating that celibacy is not foreign to scripture and that scripture calls celibacy 'good.'"

That demonstrates that you don't understand our position. We don't dispute those points. We agree that celibacy is a prudential good and that celibacy is not foreign to Scripture.

-TurretinFan

Anonymous said...

By the way TF, Maria Monk is a known hoax. She was proven to have been in an insane asylum during the time that she was allegedly in the convent.

That demonstrates that you don't understand our position. We don't dispute those points. We agree that celibacy is a prudential good and that celibacy is not foreign to Scripture.

So, then your position is that celibacy just leads to rape and sex abuse and that rape is a 'consequence' of celibacy.

I get it.

Turretinfan said...

"By the way TF, Maria Monk is a known hoax. She was proven to have been in an insane asylum during the time that she was allegedly in the convent."

a) I'm aware of the allegations about her. I carefully phrased the post to avoid making my argument reliant on her veracity.

b) While there have been many accusations, they fall short of proof of that sort.

c) It's worth noting that Romanism has a long history of attacking the victims of sexual abuse. The Legionaries of Christ (so-called) who were so active in alleging that accusations against their founder were untrue are still reeling from the recent confirmation that their founder was personally involved in the abuse.

"So, then your position is that celibacy just leads to rape and sex abuse and that rape is a 'consequence' of celibacy."

No. Again, the position is that mandatory celibacy leads to that.

"I get it."

No, sadly, you don't.

Anonymous said...

So, when a Protestant pastor cheats on his wife, abuses a child or rapes a woman you'll blame it on the 'mandatory' requirement of a pastor to be the husband of one wife.

Its laughable that you are quoting Maria Monk here by the way. She was proven in certain terms to have never been at the convent in question. It was also proven that some anti-Catholics ghost wrote the book for her.

On the other hand, it does appear that Father Marcel of the Legionnaires was an abuser. Was he an abuser because of his celibacy? Would he not have been a sexual pervert had he been married?

Your 'argument' would make sense if it were demonstrated that married men do not commit sexual crimes. But that flies in the face of the statistics.

Who cares right? Anything goes when trying to attack the Catholic Church and her members.

Turretinfan said...

"So, when a Protestant pastor cheats on his wife, abuses a child or rapes a woman you'll blame it on the 'mandatory' requirement of a pastor to be the husband of one wife."

I suppose if I had as little brains as some of my critics, I might. But thankfully, I have more sense than that.

"Its laughable that you are quoting Maria Monk here by the way."

No, I didn't quote her. I mentioned her. I even linked to her book. I didn't quote her.

"She was proven in certain terms to have never been at the convent in question."

You already made that assertion above.

"It was also proven that some anti-Catholics ghost wrote the book for her."

A fresh assertion to add to your previous one.

"On the other hand, it does appear that Father Marcel of the Legionnaires was an abuser."

There's no doubt at all about that.

"Was he an abuser because of his celibacy?"

He wasn't actually celibate. Was he an abuser because he couldn't live a normal married life? Yes, that may be.

"Would he not have been a sexual pervert had he been married?"

Unless you want to tell the Apostle Paul that he's wrong about the value of marriage, the answer is that marriage may very well have helped avoid the sexual temptations he faced.

"Your 'argument' would make sense if it were demonstrated that married men do not commit sexual crimes."

I've already demonstrated (with your evidence) that they are less prone to commit them. That should provide the sense you need (unless your imagination has stirred you up to think that our position is that married men don't commit sexual crimes).

"But that flies in the face of the statistics."

Statistics aren't your friend.

"Who cares right?"

That seems to be your attitude toward your church's misinterpretation of Scripture implied by her "discipline" of mandatory clerical celibacy.

"Anything goes when trying to attack the Catholic Church and her members."

If "the truth" counts as "anything goes" but we've been scrupulously honest in our criticisms.

Anonymous said...

You already made that assertion above.

A fresh assertion to add to your previous one.


Feel free to refute either assertion chief.

I've already demonstrated (with your evidence) that they are less prone to commit them.

No. You didn't.

Turretinfan said...

"Feel free to refute either assertion chief."

That's not how it works. The person making the assertions has to demonstrate them.

I wrote: "I've already demonstrated (with your evidence) that they are less prone to commit them."

You responded: "No. You didn't."

Scroll up and read again.

Anonymous said...

The person making the assertions has to demonstrate them.

I quoted an encyclopedia entry about the whole affair. That it was a hoax is common knowledge. Please spare me.

You are the person making claims contrary to established facts.

And, in fact, you so foolishly cited this fabrication and wicked piece of literature in order to prop up your notion that rape is a consequence of celibacy.

But, like a Steve Hays blog post, the book itself was a sexual fantasy contrived by corrupted minds of protestants who had no shame.

By your own admission, your entire argument rests on your false perception that men are 'forced' to be celibate priests.

Why don't you walk into your local Catholic parish this weekend, locate the priests and ask them if they were forced to be celibate Catholic priests?

Turretinfan said...

"I quoted an encyclopedia entry about the whole affair. That it was a hoax is common knowledge. Please spare me."

a) No you didn't quote from one.

b) You didn't even cite to one.

c) That it was a hoax is the standard RC line.

"You are the person making claims contrary to established facts."

That's another falsehood on your part.

"And, in fact, you so foolishly cited this fabrication and wicked piece of literature in order to prop up your notion that rape is a consequence of celibacy."

That's yet another falsehood (you're on a roll!) on your part. I didn't cite it, I mentioned it and linked to it. I demonstrated my claim by reference to something put out by the Vatican itself (though perhaps you will not be ashamed to call that a "fabrication and wicked piece of literature" as well.

"But, like a Steve Hays blog post, the book itself was a sexual fantasy contrived by corrupted minds of protestants who had no shame."

You mentioned this assertion above.

"By your own admission, your entire argument rests on your false perception that men are 'forced' to be celibate priests."

Some men may well be forced into the priesthood. That's not the primary claim, though. The primary claim is that priests are forced to be celibate - a truth that you seem endlessly reluctant to acknowledge.

"Why don't you walk into your local Catholic parish this weekend, locate the priests and ask them if they were forced to be celibate Catholic priests?"

You still don't get it. While some priests may have been forced into the priesthood, the claim has to do with mandatory celibacy, not mandatory service.

Why don't you ask your priest if he's allowed to marry? Of course you don't, because you already know he's forced to remain celibate.

-TurretinFan

John Bugay said...

Anonymous said: But why are you guys focusing on celibacy? This is not the only vow a priest makes. Why not chide them for taking a vow of poverty as well? Or give us grief because priests take vows of obedience?

Those in religious orders take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, but I don't believe diocesan priests must take vows of poverty and obedience.

Anonymous said...

I am not going to argue with you about Maria Monk.

This article references the facts sufficiently.

My goodness. You would think there is enough actual fodder against Catholic Priests than to hang onto fantasies.

That's yet another falsehood (you're on a roll!) on your part. I didn't cite it, I mentioned it and linked to it.

You cited it.

Dictionary definition of 'Cite':

cit•ed, cit•ing, cites

1. To quote as an authority or example.
2. To mention or bring forward as support, illustration, or proof:


You just mentioned it and brought it forward as support and illustration.

You cited it.

Thanks.

Source

But nice attempt at obfuscation though.

Some men may well be forced into the priesthood. That's not the primary claim, though. The primary claim is that priests are forced to be celibate - a truth that you seem endlessly reluctant to acknowledge.

Either you are extremely dense or you are purposefully ignoring the facts.

Priests are men that PROFESS TO HAVE THE GIFT OF CELIBACY. They are not men who are 'forced' to be celibate. They profess to have the spiritual gift.

Why don't you ask your priest if he's allowed to marry? Of course you don't, because you already know he's forced to remain celibate.

He is not forced to do anything. He has taken a vow of celibacy because he professes to posses the gift of celibacy.

Some priests break their vow. This is no different when a married person breaks their marriage vow.

Every year millions of people who were not forced to marry, break their marriage vows.

Turretinfan said...

"I am not going to argue with you about Maria Monk."

Great.

"This article references the facts sufficiently."

Your reference to an EWTN (Romanist) web page is hardly to a neutral source. I already pointed out that you're essentially rehashing the standard Romanist line on her.

"My goodness. You would think there is enough actual fodder against Catholic Priests than to hang onto fantasies."

There is plenty of actual fodder, and you're the one who has been focused on Maria Monk rather than the recent undisputed reports.

"You cited it."

Uh, no.

"You just mentioned it and brought it forward as support and illustration."

No, I didn't. I did mention it, I didn't rely on it (i.e. "bring it forward as support").

"But nice attempt at obfuscation though."

What is obfuscatory is referring to secondary dictionary meanings in order to justify an inaccurate description after the fact.

"Either you are extremely dense or you are purposefully ignoring the facts."

Your harshly negative judgment is noted.

"Priests are men that PROFESS TO HAVE THE GIFT OF CELIBACY."

We recognize that. No need to shout.

"They are not men who are 'forced' to be celibate."

They are indeed forced to remain celibate. In theory, they don't mind this. In practice, they do.

"They profess to have the spiritual gift."

They do indeed profess it. That doesn't mean they actually have it.

"He is not forced to do anything."

Then may he marry if he concludes that he does not have the gift of celibacy? Of course not. He is forced to remain celibate, whether or not he actually has the gift of celibacy. He is not free to marry. I wonder why you are so reluctant to admit this obvious truth?

"He has taken a vow of celibacy because he professes to posses the gift of celibacy."

He has taken the vow in order to become a priest. The vow itself is, in effect, a profession that one has the gift. The profession of the gift is not the cause of the vow. People can profess a gift of celibacy without taking a vow regarding celibacy. One would hope that all priests actually believed they had the gift when they began the priesthood. They obviously could not know whether they would still have the gift 10 years later.

"Some priests break their vow. This is no different when a married person breaks their marriage vow."

It's different in a variety of ways. Unlawful vows are void. In certain instances, it may be obligatory (for the reasons Paul states) for a person to marry rather than continue in celibacy. It is never obligatory for a person to have sexual relations with a third party (leaving aide the levirate marriage laws). Furthermore, marriage vows may lawfully be set aside in the case of adultery by the other party.

"Every year millions of people who were not forced to marry, break their marriage vows."

People who are married are forced not to have sexual relations with third parties. This burden is reasonable and appropriate. We don't mind admitting that married people are forced to avoid sexual encounters with any third party. That's because we know that's a biblical prohibition. Your church's prohibition on marriage for certain persons is directly contrary to Scripture.

-TurretinFan

Anonymous said...

And, it’s pretty sad that you are all squeamish about admitting to citing it for some odd reason.

If it’s such a trustworthy source why are you trying to squirm out of having cited it?

If we are ashamed of sources we cite than we shouldn't be citing those sources.

For example, I cited an insurance institute study (as cited by a FoxNews piece) to prove that in the past 50 years the cases of sex abuse in Protestant Churches is equal to that of Catholic Churches. I am not ashamed of having cited that insurance institute.

See how that works?

Anonymous said...

No, I didn't. I did mention it, I didn't rely on it (i.e. "bring it forward as support").

Hah. Here is your citation:

"Another consequence is that priests do to nuns the kinds of things that Maria Monk reported..."

And you linked Maria Monk's book. But you weren't bringing it forward for support. I guess you just were mentioning it because you just like to randomly mention things in your blog posts?

Then may he marry if he concludes that he does not have the gift of celibacy? Of course not.

If he really felt that he made a terrible mistake he could leave the priesthood. Its happened before.

You may not know this but every year priests renew their vows publically.

Turretinfan said...

"And, it’s pretty sad that you are all squeamish about admitting to citing it for some odd reason."

I've already addressed this canard.

"If it’s such a trustworthy source why are you trying to squirm out of having cited it?"

Who on earth said it was a trustworthy source?

"If we are ashamed of sources we cite than we shouldn't be citing those sources."

Only you have claimed anyone was citing the source.

"For example, I cited an insurance institute study (as cited by a FoxNews piece) to prove that in the past 50 years the cases of sex abuse in Protestant Churches is equal to that of Catholic Churches."

You linked to a misleading article by "Father Jonathan Morris" published at FOXNEws.com in the "Fox Fan Central" section. The insurance institute study dealt only with "Protestant" churches.

"I am not ashamed of having cited that insurance institute."

You've now mis-cited it. Are you ashamed of that?

"And you linked Maria Monk's book. But you weren't bringing it forward for support. I guess you just were mentioning it because you just like to randomly mention things in your blog posts?"

No, I was trying to delicately avoid stating the disgusting act that your priests did to your nuns.

"If he really felt that he made a terrible mistake he could leave the priesthood. Its happened before."

Do you admit that doing this would involve sacrilege according to your church's teaching?

"You may not know this but every year priests renew their vows publically."

They are invited to do so during the Chrism mass. Perhaps you know better than I do whether they are actually required to do so. My impression is that they are not required, merely invited.

- TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

Maybe an illustration will get through to you. Suppose I want to get a job working as a librarian in the city library. Suppose they say, "We only hire librarians who are single and who promise to remain unmarried."

Would anyone doubt that the promise to marry is required by the library? Would anyone doubt that one must remain unmarried as a librarian in that library?

While it would matter subjectively to the librarians who worked there, it does not objectively matter whether the librarians make the promise willingly or reluctantly. Either way, they are forced to remain single, or they will lose their jobs.

If you asked any librarian at this fictional library whether he was permitted to be married, he would admit that he is forbidden to get married.

Yet for your own polemic ends, you wish to deny that your church forbids priests to marry, though the situation is analogous.

- TurretinFan

Eco said...

When Protestants confront the issue of celibacy in Roman Catholicism it seems to be the standard approach taken by Romanists to claim that, "celibacy is not forced upon anyone, it is a spiritual gift".

Tfan is right to say that our dispute is about mandatory celibacy for men that want to become priests. When I used to frequent the religious and spirituality section of a popular Q&A forum, I would often see questions from young collage kids that were torn between wanting a wife and children and also wanting to become priests. From all the question I saw --- none of these young men appeared as though they had the spiritual gift to remain celibate because they also wanted families!

But they were torn between the two because Rome gave them the dilemma of: Have a family or become a priest and serve God.

Here's an excerpt from a young person that wanted to become a priest but was also at odds with wanting a family:

"Recently, I believe that I have received a calling to the Priesthood. Thus, when I get my J.D or a Ph.D (Political Science) I'll also get my M.Div so I can become a Priest.
I always wanted a family/children and I talked to my parish Priest about it. He told me that you have to sacrifice some important things up to be in a union with Christ.

He also said some other significant stuff that are a bit personal. My question is, do you have any advice for me?

Thanks.

The thing is that I've always wanted a family with children".

An excerpt from the answer chosen as best: "my dear erroneous friends, the Church is not even considering giving up the discipline that priests remain celibate throughout their priestly life. Giving up the ability to have a wife and children is part of becoming a priest".
http://tinyurl.com/ygc8wpl

Biblically, I don't know why this has to be an either or situation.

Christopher said...

Perhaps this is just me being silly, but I think perhaps a question needs to be raised in these discussions: Does this question change in meaning if priests and those in the priesthood are called to a special vocation different than making shoes or teaching a class?

Also:

Would the question of marriage being a vocation as well as celibacy being a vocation (both of which are valid) constitute an alteration of the question regarding "forced" celibacy? It is my understanding that in the Latin Rite, Deacons can be married...is this true?

Just wondering...and trying to stay out of the hail of comment-fire.

Chris

Turretinfan said...

"Does this question change in meaning if priests and those in the priesthood are called to a special vocation different than making shoes or teaching a class?"

1) I'd carefully distinguish between the calling to serve as an elder or deacon and the supposed calling to serve as a "priest."

2) As to the former, it is a different calling from a secular calling. This actually seems to make it more critical that those married men called by God to serve as elders and deacons not be barred from serving by the traditions of men.

"Would the question of marriage being a vocation as well as celibacy being a vocation (both of which are valid) constitute an alteration of the question regarding "forced" celibacy?"

This calls for a slight variation on my comment above. Since marriage is a calling of God, it is ungodly to bar from marriage those called to it, who happen to be serving as elders or deacons based on the traditions of men.

"It is my understanding that in the Latin Rite, Deacons can be married...is this true?"

Yes. Rome has relented in this regard, and Rome's change on this point has lead many to hope that further reform is on the horizon.

steve said...

Likewise, if an Anglican priest with a wife and kids converts to Romanism, he can be reordained as a Roman Catholic priest, yet he's allowed to keep his wife and kids.

This illustrates the ad hoc nature of the Vatican's policy.

Turretinfan said...

Indeed. One wonders whether they will do the same with married Anglican bishops.