Pot meet kettle, kettle, meet pot....
Not the best of time for the |Catholic Church
- Thread starter Ramirez
- Start date
Pot meet kettle, kettle, meet pot....
To the OP, no it certainly is not. Hopefully with prayer and the grace of God it will get better.
I've read this whole thread and find it quite sad (from the abuse parts) interesting (from the discussion part) and was going to post about all the incorrect theorys, statements and the general ignorance regarding the Catholic Church, however, to do so may incite more anger and I do not wish to do that.
So, if anyone (Catholics and Christians included) wants to really know what the teachings are of the Church are and why we do what we do, I would refer you to you local Barnes and Noble and look up a little work called "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" it explains it quite well.
Here is a link:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm
There are many, many other documents one can read that explain why the Catholic Church is what it is, teaches what it teaches, does what it does and the reasoning behind it.......the real question is......... how many will.
We'll see.
Michael
I've read this whole thread and find it quite sad (from the abuse parts) interesting (from the discussion part) and was going to post about all the incorrect theorys, statements and the general ignorance regarding the Catholic Church, however, to do so may incite more anger and I do not wish to do that.
So, if anyone (Catholics and Christians included) wants to really know what the teachings are of the Church are and why we do what we do, I would refer you to you local Barnes and Noble and look up a little work called "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" it explains it quite well.
Here is a link:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm
There are many, many other documents one can read that explain why the Catholic Church is what it is, teaches what it teaches, does what it does and the reasoning behind it.......the real question is......... how many will.
We'll see.
Michael
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,399
- Reaction score
- 74
This is actually one of the arguments in favor of Christ having been married. Because it would have been unheard of that a Rabbi was unmarried. This in turn makes the whole celibacy requirement moot.
But of course, 'everybody knows' that only the 4 accepted gospels are truthful and all the rest of vile lies attempting to tempt the faithful...
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,399
- Reaction score
- 74
It's also not nearly as effective if the woman has a very irregular cycle.
Also
So even the rythm method is not ok if all you use it for is to aim for enjoyment rather than procreation.
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,399
- Reaction score
- 74
In my case, this is anything but true.
- Let's see. I don't agree with the RC views on birth control. Some old man who doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'sex' has no authority to tell me what to do or not to do with the body that their god supposedly gave me. My tubes are tied.
- I don't agree with the RC views on homosexuality.
- I don't agree with monotheism. Since religion is an expression of human opinion and words, it is incorrect by definition. Religion is about what it means for you. So imo any religion is as valid as the next one.
- I don't believe in the virgin birth, walking on water, celibacy of jesus, the resurrection, and all the other hooha. I think that is caused by embellishment, mistranslation and censoring opposing views.
- I don't agree with how the RC church strives for power to rule the lives of men.
- I most certainly do not believe that un baptized children go to hell. Any God who'd let that happen is no God of mine.
There is very little I agree with in the teachings of the RC church.
My case is more like someone calling himself an American despite having a heartfelt contempt for the government in charge of the infrastructure.
Catholic priests take vows of celibacy when they take their Holy Orders. They may quite presumably have experienced sex prior to that. Some few have even been married.
Nor do I.
That, of course, is up to each person to decide for themselves.
It's possible, of course. Belief is a matter for the individual.
Such as?
First, the Catholic Church does not believe that either, and second, if God exists in the form Christians believe, he's your God, my God, everybody's God. You can believe or not believe, but if the Christian belief is true, you can't wish Him out of existence.
As long as what you disagree with about Catholic teachings are actually Catholic teachings, I have no problem with that. I admit to becoming frustrated when people declare that Catholics believe this or Catholics believe that and it's not true. We do not believe unbaptized babies go to hell, for example. It's simply not dogma of the Catholic Church.
I have problems with some of the stances of the Catholic church, but I don't have 'contempt' for it.
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,399
- Reaction score
- 74
It depends on interpretation. From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven (see BAPTISM, subtitle Necessity of Baptism), Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul's teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Romans 5:12 sqq.). On the other hand, it is clear from Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq., 2 Corinthians 5:10; see also APOCATASTASIS). The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo."
It's only been relatively recently the latter paragraph (about the perfect natural happiness) has gained traction among the clergy. Before that, say early 1900's, the fate of unbaptized children was said to be eternal damnation. One of the more folksy descriptions of hell in our parts had a 'bridge forged from the souls of unbaptized children, held in eternal agony' or something to that effect.
As for wanting to rule our lives: I don't know how the situation was in the US, but in Belgium, the RC clergy were at least partially in charge in all villages and cities. There was the holy trinity of industry leaders, clergy and school directors. Between the 3 of them, they bossed people around from cradle to grave.
In Belgium the RC church had a very strong influence over our leading 'elite' and the monarchy. That influence got broken only 15 or so years ago with the events surrounding the approval of the abortion laws. And the Vatican was seriously displeased with the Belgium cardinal for not being able to prevent those laws from being approved.
We do all realize of course that there is zero evidence at all on the existence of Jesus as a person right? All evidence of his historical existence occurs decades after his supposed death.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo
Last edited:
The Catholic Church (and other churches which require celibacy) do not claim biblical authority to impose this condition (there is biblical tradition for those who wish to interpret it that way). It is instead a church rule (dogma), which could be changed if the church sees fit to do so. Nothing to do with Jesus being married or unmarried.
Furthermore, there are married Catholic priests! Those who are members of certain Eastern orders that are in communion with the Holy See are both Catholic and married if they wish to be. Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism and are married may remain married and become Catholic priests. Even ministers of other Protestant faiths who have converted have been allowed to become priests and remain married:
http://www.thefloridacatholic.org/cns/2009_articles/20090609_cns_married_priest.php
And of course, it's voluntary. One is not forced to become a priest. Those seeking the priesthood are warned again and again about the requirements of celibacy. It's not like it's a surprise to anyone, and they are free to refuse to become priests or even to quit if they find they cannot conform to the Church's rules and revert to the lay state.
I don't understand why people have so much heartburn over things that are a) half-truths and b) are not issues that they need to deal with anyway.
There is more evidence for the historical existence of Jesus than there is for the existence of anthropogenic global warming, and a higher percentage of scientists agree that Jesus, the man, lived at the time claimed in the Christian Bible.
You'll have to do better than that.
It may be only recent, but it's the way it is now. It's hard to complain about a religion holding a belief when they no longer hold that belief.
In the USA, Catholics have historically been looked upon with suspicion, and there has been a great deal of fear regarding Catholic control over the government. JFK was our first and so far only Catholic president.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism#United_States
The "Known Nothing" Party was an anti-Catholic political party. Jefferson hated Catholics and many states devised loyalty oaths for elected officials that attempted to ensure that Catholics even if elected could not take office.
One might argue that in cities like Boston and Chicago, and perhaps even New York, Catholics eventually came to power and held sway, but as has been noted, American Catholics are as likely as not to disobey the Pope in many things.
Hasn't been the case in the USA.
OP
Ramirez
Black Belt
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 588
- Reaction score
- 10
- Thread Starter
- #94
I can kind of see a good reason for priestly celibacy historically and even currently.
The Catholic Church adminsters to some of the poorest societies in the world, more so than other denominations. The local parish priest would have a better lifestyle in that setting, who the hell would want to throw sexual politics into that situation.
That being said perhaps if priests were allowed to marry and the married priest assigned to the poorer parishes it might get around that situation
There are all kinds of good arguments for an against priestly celibacy.
Many inside the Church see the current crisis with the shortage of priests as being part of the overall problems experienced by the Church world-wide. Churches go without priests, Deacons are being relied upon more and more. Some say that the shortage of priests has led to an overall decline in the ability of the Church to turn down applications from those who might otherwise be rejected.
There is a practical matter; the Church supports the priest financially. If the priest is married, then the Church would be bound to support a spouse and possible offspring as well. Many Protestant denominations do this, of course, but it's a heavy burden.
The Church has traditionally stated that the priest cannot serve two responsibilities equally well. A priest who is distracted with thoughts of family responsibilities cannot be giving his entire being to the needs of the Church and the faithful.
The Church has also tended not to bend to the will of the times, instead choosing deliberately when and if to change internally or externally, without regard to public pressure.
It goes on and on. And even more - if the Church allows priests to marry, why not women also? Why not gays? And so on.
I don't mind having any of those debates, and I'm not one of those who would leave the Church if they allowed priests to marry or even women priests. It's not up to me, and I'm OK with it either way.
links please. As I've yet to find any evidence at all myself, enlighten me.
Unbaised if you will please.
Wiki, yes not the best, but not bad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Why was it OK for at least the first 300 years and perhaps the first 1000 for priests to marry? but not now?
I don't think it is realistic to say that priests know nothing about marriage. Even the priests who have never been married have had to take a serious vow of their own with their ordination.
In addition, priests go to school longer than MDs...4 years undergrad in Philosophy then at least 4 years at the Seminary.
In addition, priests go to school longer than MDs...4 years undergrad in Philosophy then at least 4 years at the Seminary.
You would have to go back and ask the various members of Church leadership that question. I've read some of the various historical information about when and why celibacy was required, but it's not something I lose a lot of sleep over either way. As I've said, I don't really understand why non-Catholics care one way or another, or why even Catholics care if they're not priests and not intending to become one. It's not really anyone else's problem, let alone their business, is it?
I actually read that Wikipedia entry with interest, but chose not to post the link to it. I get tired of that dreary "Oh, if you're going to post that source, then I guess you have no argument at all," kind of thing.
The oldest authenticated sources depicting Jesus go back to about the 1st Century, and there is a general agreement among historians that at least portions of John were written by John, portions of Mark written by Mark. These would be first-hand accounts. The problem of course is that we do not have the actual documents they wrote, the actual ink on paper from their pens. But if their accounts are false, they're widespread and their lies date from the 1st century AD and have been kept remarkably accurate in their lying since that time (based on other documents that have come to light in more recent years).
The historical existence of Jesus is a very old debate, and the oldest books I've read on the subject date back to the early 1900's, such as The Historicity of Jesus by Shirley Jackson Case, published in 1912.
In any case, there is no direct evidence that Jesus the person did or did not exist. The argument itself seems to have worn itself out, and the mass of historians that concern themselves with the question at all accept that there was a historical Jesus, regardless of whether or not they consider him to have been the Savior or Christ.
Did Jesus exist as a person? Yes, beyond any real doubt. Was he the Son of God? That's up to people to decide for themselves. It's pretty clear that without Paul of Tarsus, Jesus would have been a pretty obscure figure, perhaps even unknown today except as lumped in with a handful of other would-be Messiahs of that particular time period. It was Paul that put Jesus on the map, so to speak.
