Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Research Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsResearch Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic

a Question about Sex and Catholicism

jerseyart said:
Priests are married to the Church.

If sex is a biological necessity, then a lot of guys on this board should be dead by now.;)



The problem is people confuse the role of a priest with that of any other Christian minister, and that simply isnt the case. It's the same reason in many respects that there are no female priests.

The priest, most especially in the Eucharist (but also in other sacraments such as confession) act in what is known as in Persona Cristae (in the person of Christ). He in effect becomes for us a physical conduit for Christ on earth,

The priest take oaths of obedience and chastity (sometimes poverty) in imitation of Christ. He sets himself to live by Christs example, and devote himself completely to God. In essence he rejects the things of this earth in pursuit of Holiness.

A husband by necessity must be devoted to his wife and children, and that is how it should be.He fulfills his love for God in service to his family. A priest devotes Himself to serve only God, and in so doing devotes himself to serve all. His chastity is a gift to God, and that act of sacrifice is done as a gift to all humanity (Catholics unlike other Christian denominations believe in works coupled with faith, not just faith alone). There is value in sacrifice.

The reason that there are no female priests is because the Church is bound by the example of Christ. Christ chose no female apostles, and by tradition the Church doesnt either. More importantly, God chose to manifest Himself on earth as a man, not as a woman. The priest in his function as a "step in" for Christ, so to speak,because of that uses men in the role of priests. In short, Christ wasn't female, and the Church has no authority to say to God "well he should have been"

and you believe none of this is open to interpretation?

also what do you think about the books of the bible that are missing...

the ones with the women in it?

Do you think that if women were allowed to come forward in those times...

to interpret and log christs words..

they wouldnt have?
 
jerseyart said:
Then you should recognize it is unnecessary and rather disingenous to ask a Catholic which Bible they think is proper to follow


Huh? Catholics cant ask questions? what are you smoking? Can Catholic children ask their parents about the bible? Whats the age cutoff for that? I didnt get the memo.
 
CFZB said:
and you believe none of this is open to interpretation?

also what do you think about the books of the bible that are missing...

the ones with the women in it?

Do you think that if women were allowed to come forward in those times...

to interpret and log christs words..

they wouldnt have?


I didnt say it wasn't open to debate. But you haven't debated the points. Instead you pretended as if no one answered your question

As I said, what do you disagree with bor. Which part?

And there are no missing books in the Bible. To suggest there are misses the entire point of how the Bible books were compiled.

And it had nothign to do with who logged Christs words, but Christs example. There are no female apostles, and Christ was a man. Is there some alternate reality Im not aware of bor?
 
Yet even more info: {bolding is mine}

Celibacy
The Church sees great value in the way of life of those who renounce marriage so that they can dedicate themselves to serving the kingdom of God. For spiritual as well as practical reasons, the Catholic Church in the West also requires priests and bishops to live lives of permanent celibacy, unless they have been given special dispensation.

Definition
The dictionary definition speaks of a celibate person as someone who is not married and is bound or committed to remaining unmarried (so while two people who are engaged, for example, are not married, they are not committed to remaining unmarried).

The word 'celibacy' is often confused today with 'chastity', which means "abstaining from unlawful or immoral sexual activity" (Oxford English Dictionary). Strictly speaking, the word 'celibacy' does not govern sexual activity. So, while some people may be technically celibate, they may be having sexual relations and yet are committed to remaining unmarried. Nonetheless, many will describe themselves as 'celibate' because they are not having sex, when strictly they mean they are 'chaste'.


The history of celibacy
The tradition of celibacy seems to be exclusively Christian and to have been connected from the beginning with the virtue of chastity. It is evident that Jesus remained unmarried, but the reference to the apostle Peter's mother in law (Mark 1:30) indicates that not all of Jesus' followers were. The letters of St Paul make it clear that at least some of the early Church leaders (its bishops and priests) were married (Letter to Timothy 3:1-5).

There was no law established in the first three or four centuries. There is evidence, however, that even at this time many priests were unmarried or withdrew from marriage after ordination. Further evidence suggests that the people did not always approve of married clergy, and there is reference to people being urged not to stop going to services just because they were being led by a married priest.

The Council of Elvira in Spain (about 306) forbade all bishops, priests and deacons from having wives. This practice then began to apply to the whole of the Western or Roman Church through various papal decrees from Pope Damasus I onwards. Damasus regarded sexual intercourse as 'defilement' (a legal impurity rather than a sin, along the lines of the Old Testament Jewish laws - see Leviticus 15:18).

The so-called 'Dark Ages', however, saw a decline in priestly morale and discipline as society itself fell into turmoil. About 1018 Pope Benedict VIII reacted against this decline and brought in stronger laws to support clerical celibacy and made it impossible for the children of priests to inherit property (which had often been church property in the first place).

This move was strongly supported by Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) and his applying of existing rules is regarded as the first effective enforcement of clerical celibacy. The Second Lateran Council in 1139 seems to provide the first written law that made it impossible for a cleruc to get married. Later, after the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, the Council of Trent (a meeting of the bishops of the Church, held in North Italy) reaffirmed the tradition of celibacy in 1563. Yet, despite arguments from some of the bishops present, the Council said that it was not a law that came from God but a Church tradition that could be changed. It said, too, that the Church's position on celibacy in no way minimised its high regard for marriage: the two callings were quite distinct and had their own distinctive demands.

The present position
The Church's position remains essentially what it was at the Council of Trent. Celibacy is not an essential element of priesthood (in other words there could be a priesthood which is not celibate), but it is considered as an important part of priesthood, and a sign of the priest's commitment to be free to serve God and his people.

The Catholic priest and celibacy
It is clear from the above that the Roman Catholic Church has had a long tradition of requiring celibacy of its priests. By the ordinary rules of traditional morality chastity has always been required of them, in the same way that it is required of everybody.

The promise of celibacy is made by the future priest during the ceremony of ordination as a deacon - this is the stage before priesthood. The bishops says to the candidate: "Celibacy is both a sign and a motive of pastoral charity, and a special source of spiritual fruitfulness in the world. By living in this state with total dedication, moved by a sincere love for Christ the Lord, you are consecrated to him in a new and special way. By this consecration you will adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart; you will be more freely at the service of God and mankind. By your life and character you will give witness to your brothers and sisters in faith that God must be loved above all else, and that it is he whom you serve in others."


By 'Roman Catholic' we mean the Church that regards the Pope in Rome as its highest authority on earth. The 'Eastern' or 'Orthodox' Church (some of which also recognise the pope as head) have a different tradition, and allow married priests. They will allow married men to be ordained priests, but will not allow priests to get married (in other words, if you want to be a married priest, you would have to get married first and then be ordained a priest). Their bishops are not married, nor are their monks.

Recent exceptions: married former Anglican priests
In this country recently there have been exceptions to the celibate tradition, and there are married Catholic priests. They have all come from the Church of England where they were working as Anglican ministers and were married (the Anglican Church, like the other Christian churches, allows its priests to be married, and - unlike the Orthodox Church - will allow people who are already ordained to get married afterwards). With special permission from Rome, these men have been ordained as Catholic priests and remain married. It has been made clear to them that if their wives should die, they would not be allowed to marry again.

The Bishops of England and Wales have made it clear that these circumstances are exceptional, and that celibacy for priests remains the normal tradition.
 
jerseyart said:
I didnt say it wasn't open to debate. But you haven't debated the points. Instead you pretended as if no one answered your question

As I said, what do you disagree with bor. Which part?

And there are no missing books in the Bible. To suggest there are misses the entire point of how the Bible books were compiled.

And it had nothign to do with who logged Christs words, but Christs example. There are no female apostles, and Christ was a man. Is there some alternate reality Im not aware of bor?

I don't think he's arguing JA, I just don't think he understands....at all.....
 
jerseyart said:
I didnt say it wasn't open to debate. But you haven't debated the points. Instead you pretended as if no one answered your question

As I said, what do you disagree with bor. Which part?

And there are no missing books in the Bible. To suggest there are misses the entire point of how the Bible books were compiled.

And it had nothign to do with who logged Christs words, but Christs example. There are no female apostles, and Christ was a man. Is there some alternate reality Im not aware of bor?
where did i disagree with anything besides the fact you didnt answer what I meant?
 
BrothaBill said:
Huh? Catholics cant ask questions? what are you smoking? Can Catholic children ask their parents about the bible? Whats the age cutoff for that? I didnt get the memo.


Who said Catholics cant ask questions?

Of course you can. What you cannot do is substitute your own interpretation ofg what constitutes the Body of Faith with that of the Church.

The Church is the final arbiter of what constitutes the faith, not majority opinion
 
Top Bottom