There is a point left out of this issue that ought to be front and center. That is simply this: The Bible commanded that church ministers be married.

The only offices elaborated upon in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul that pertained to the local Christian church are that of bishop and deacon. The qualifications for these offices are given in I Timothy 3 and are worth looking at. I’ll quote the relevant section on bishops, (KJV):

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife … that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.”

And just in case there was ANY possibility that this might not be understood, the Apostle even gave the _reason_:

“For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”

There it is! Church ministers were required to be married, because without that experience they were not qualified to take care of the church. The same rule was applied to deacons. (I can’t speak to offices such as ‘cardinal’ as I do not even find those anywhere in the New Testament.)

Now in Mohammedan countries, where artifical barriers have been erected between men and women, homosexual conduct is actually very common. Those who engage in it insist it’s not about what they are, just something they do, since they are unable to be near women.

Those who insist that the so-called vow of celibacy has nothing to do with the recent pedophilia scandals sometimes assert that the problem is simply homosexual priests. But what are the chances that homosexuals would even end up in an office where the Scriptural requirement were enforced, that ministers MUST be married? Would you presume to answer the Apostle’s rhetorical question?

Those who dare to arrogate to themselves the authority to overturn Biblical commands have much to answer for. Many an altar boy could have been spared much damage, and the problems Mr. Kalb writes about could have been avoided if the Apostle’s command had been faithfully observed.

Obedience to the Scriptures: It’s not just good for civilizations, but also for ecclesiastical institutions that call themselves “Christian.”

Does your interpretation make sense though? Saint Paul himself wasn’t married, and he said he wished all could be as he was but it was better to marry than burn. For that matter, Christ didn’t marry.

when ever i read joel’s comments on the Church, my thoughts seem to always turn to st. louis’ advice on how to argue with a heretic.

but this being the internet, and thus my being unable to follow st. louis’ rather explict advice, i shall have to suffice myself by very politely saying: joel you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. which given what you are, is very understandable.

How else would you interpret the plain meaning of what is stated? The Apostle went so far as to _clarify_ his statement by giving the reason for the requirement!

Paul wasn’t married, by neither was he a bishop. He was an Apostle. And of course Lord Jesus didn’t marry; He came specifically to give His life for us. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the qualifications for church ministry. (The Apostle Peter, who was later said to be the first pope, in fact WAS married.)

Christ did endorse a life of celibacy for those who could bear it, but again, we are dealing here with a specific command about a specific office. Nowhere do we see a _command_ to any Christian to be celibate. A voluntary choice a person makes is one thing, but requiring it in this case is quite another.

Since you ask me about my ‘interpretation’ — as if the obvious meaning isn’t clear — let me ask you these questions:

1) Could you possibly “interpret” this passage as requiring celibacy of ministers? (No sarcasm intended.)

2) If the institution in question here in fact required ministers to be married, do you think these pedophilia scandals would have occured?

3) Again, do you want to try answering the Apostle’s rhetorical question? Or is it not clear what he is saying here?

4) If the Apostle indeed meant that church ministers must be married, how else should he have expressed it other than the way he did, so that the meaning would be clearer?

I would note that in a Roman Catholic New Testament I own, there is a footnote to this passage indicating that priestly celibacy as church law “is of later ecclesiastical institution.” (i.e. the Apostle said one thing; later we said another. Evidently whoever wrote the footnote understood what the passage meant — or at least that priestly celibacy didn’t generally conform to it.)

Paul said in I Cor 14:37, “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”

It seems to me that a conscientious effort to obey the commands of the Lord as revealed through the Apostle, would require AT THE VERY LEAST that church ministers would be given the _option_ of marriage. It makes no sense to assume that after a few centuries God would turn around and suddenly expect ministers to remain unmarried, overturning the principle He had previously revealed — that experience as head of a household was a prerequisite to leading a church.

That change was made by fallible men; the fruits of this are young boys who have been molested by men to whom was entrusted their spiritual care, giving occassion to the enemies of God to rail, as your article notes well.

abby, when you have anything of substance to say, I will be happy to address it. :-)

Please keep in mind that the only thing we (I assume) have in agreement between us is a belief that the Bible is the Word of God and its teachings are true. If you cannot prove your case from the Scriptures, then you have no case to begin with.

Otherwise, feel free to content yourself with name-calling. :-)

And abby I might just add that by inferring that those who disagree with you should be murdered, you have in fact validated a few of my earlier posts.

My ancestor Isaac’s family — mother, father, 3 brothers and 3 sisters were all murdered for not being Roman Catholic. The youngest was only 5. Perhaps you can take some comfort from this?

Joel writes:
“I would note that in a Roman Catholic New Testament I own, there is a footnote to this passage indicating that priestly celibacy as church law “is of later ecclesiastical institution.” “

It is true that priestly celibacy in the Roman Rite is a disciplinary rule, not a doctrinal rule. There are a number of rites in communion with Rome where that is not the discipline, and some priests in (e.g.) the Byzantine rite are in fact married. So in the end the question of whether to change the Roman Rite rule is a prudential one. It doesn’t seem wise to make changes to any rule at present if such a change can be interpreted as affirming that sexual acts are necessary and compelled rather than optional and chosen, though.

The bulk of Joel’s posts do seem to show a fundamental lack of understanding about what Catholics actually believe and the Church actually teaches; so much so that one hardly knows where to start. Hopefully the rant has helped him blow off some steam though.

I suppose I should add that the rule against contraception and other sexual sins is doctrinal, not disciplinary like priestly celibacy, just in case any of our non-Catholic friends are wondering. The Pope can’t through some sort of proclamation make an objectively sinful act like contraception OK.

We have discussed priestly celibacy before at VFR, e.g.

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001025.html

Matt writes: “The bulk of Joel’s posts do seem to show a fundamental lack of understanding about what Catholics actually believe and the Church actually teaches; so much so that one hardly knows where to start.”

If that’s true I have plenty of company. In my experience there seems to be a great variation among Roman Catholics as to what they believe and what their church teaches, and what it means to be a Roman Catholic. I have had numerous exchanges with Roman Catholics over the past 25 years, but have almost never met one who had even a rudimentarily knowledge of the Bible, so it was difficult to establish a framework of discussion, but still interesting. The explanations I were given about Roman Catholicism have gone all over the board. (abby is the first to suggest that I should be murdered, however. Of course, she was just echoing what another ‘saint’ had said.)

In any case, your comment appears to be a stock-n-trade response by those who have no argument. Neither of you even bother mentioning the Bible.

If I am so ignorant about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, I am not ignorant of what she has in the past done to people who refused to submit to her teachings. Never in 25 years has any Roman Catholic to whom I’ve spoken suggested that this was wrong; the responses run the gamut between justification, obfuscation, and outright denial of historically documented facts.

Strange that you would call my posts a ‘rant.’ I didn’t call anyone names or call for anyone’s murder. ;-) I do feel strongly that those who murdered my family, and those who afterward endorsed the action, are guilty of murder.

I do believe that there are genuine Christians in the Roman Catholic Church, if that matters. I believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that He died and rose again the 3rd day for our justification — if that matters. I consider Him my Lord and Saviour, by faith — if that matters, and I rest all on Him.

It is not my intention to offend anyone, believe it or not. I address these issues the way I understand them. I welcome rebuttal, and honest, sincere dialogue. You needn’t worry about offending me, though it’s not clear whether I enjoy that same luxury. I appreciate forthright exchanges of views, no matter how strong the disagreement. But what you have given is typical in my experience — just high-handed condescension; we’re right and you’re wrong.

Otherwise, as you made only general reference to how you think I’m lacking but didn’t really address any of the points that I made, I don’t suppose there’s much further to discuss.

I’m wondering if Abby is able to debate the substance of a person’s argument without resorting to personal attacks. Very few of her comments deal with what a poster has actually said.

Joel:
My intention was to specifically address the issue of celibacy and point out our past discussion of it on VFR. I suppose my expression of chagrin invited Joel’s objection, but with all due respect “my ancestors were murdered by Catholics!” certainly comes off as a rant.

The Catholic Church doesn’t and never has executed heretics; only secular authorities can do that. This doesn’t for a moment imply that Catholics haven’t been involved in atrocities, of course, as have protestants and indeed the very founders of protestantism Luther and Calvin. “Your hands are bloodier than mine” doesn’t usually indicate the start of a productive discussion though.

Another reason it is difficult to even begin a discussion with Joel is that he apparently adheres to some form of _sola scriptura_, which is fundamentally and even provably irrational. We’ve discussed that on VFR before also.

I agree with Joel that many Catholics, most especially in America, don’t have the first clue what a Catholic is supposed to believe. 80% of these “Catholics” contracept, for example, so it is difficult to even use the designator “Catholic” without scare quotes.

Finally, Joel shouldn’t expect me to defend Abby’s discourse in general but he might want to explore the notion that an allusion to St. Louis in effect means “kill all the heretics, especially Joel!” before making any rash assumptions.

I retract my St. Louis apologetics. It appears he said the following:

“A Christian should argue with a blasphemer only by running his sword through his bowels as far as it will go.”

Abby’s allusion was uncalled for and she should apologize for it. This is supposed to be a civilized discussion.

My own apologies to Joel.

Not long ago Matt accused me of being a Catholic hater for questioning aspects of Catholicism. Now while some of my comments were wrong, I notice that Abby’s comments regarding the mass murder of Protestants do not rate a mention from him. I for one am getting tired of the double standards at VFR, where hatemongering comments like Abby’s are fine but any questioning of Catholicism is “ranting” or “bigotry” The technical term for this is hypocrisy.

I just read read Matt’s comments above, which were posted while I was writing mine. I totally withdraw mine, and I for one am very appreciative that Matt stood up against Abby’s comments. Sorry for jumping the gun before giving you a chance to respond.

Joel makes some interesting points. But unexplained is the relation between A) a supposed Biblical command that Catholic priests (or Christian ministers) marry and B) the connection between liberal attitudes towards sex and the view that experts should run everything. In addition, unexplained is how A best explains B.

i don’t know what joel is so uptight over. he’s the one who in an earlier post, of the typical anti-catholic rant, makes reference to his huguenot ancestry being ‘murdered’ by the Catholic Church. nevermind that it was actually st. louis’ namesake, louis 14th who as civil authority prosecuted the huguenots for treason.

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001526.html#6480

i thought the tie-in between joel’s huguenot reference and my reference to st. louis was rather fitting. obviously i couldn’t follow st. louis’s advice literally since i’m not king and st. louis was, when he gave his useful advice. besides the fact that it was formal, not material heretics like joel, who earned a close association with a stake.

the allusion i was making was to joel’s cluelessness and the despair in which one throws up one’s hands in wondering where to begin in dispelling such woeful misunderstanding of Church teaching.

worse yet, as experience has taught me, even when i’ve gone through the trouble of explaining the error and contradiction, protestants almost invariably will say they still believe inspite of the illogic of their position. at which point i guess i probably would have ran a rapier through their bowels in frustration if i’d had one in hand.

besides, attacks on the Faith, even in ignorance like joel’s, really set my blood to the boiling point; and at which point if zoro happened along to tickle joel’s backside while standing at his frontside, i think i’d just sit back and enjoy the festivities.

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife … that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.”

“For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”

I don’t see what’s outrageous about reading this as meaning that a bishop can have at most one wife and must keep an orderly house. The letter isn’t written as a formal manual covering all possibilities but as a collection of injunctions having to do with particular issues and the obvious concern is that the bishop be a man who (like Paul himself) had his act together. With that in mind the intent could have been simply to say that a bishop shouldn’t have multiple wives or an unruly household.

In itself that’s quite speculative. That way of looking at it is supported though by I Cor., vii, 7-8. Paul wished that all men were as himself, and he presumably also wished that some men be bishops. For me though the issue is settled by the fairly early (Council of Elvira, c. 300) and universal (6th Ecumenical Council) practice of the Church both in the East and West. If a possible reading makes sense of other things Paul says and of what the Church has actually been doing all these years then it’s probably the right reading.

Non-Catholics would profit from tuning into EWTN, the Eternal Word Television Network. This network was built by a Catholic nun, Mother Angelica, who is now too ill to appear. The network is full of brilliant Catholic theologians and inspirational priests and laypersons. What could be fascinating for Protestants, many of whom have been told Catholic doctrine is not based on the Bible, is that Catholic doctrine is soaked in Biblical verses. Protestants would be proud to view, for example, the charismatic (oh yes, Catholics embrace charisms) Father Mitch Pacwa mesmerize careful listeners with his Bible open in one hand.

In my cable area, EWTN runs from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Programs are repeated.

I’m going to revisit this thread long enough to admit some personal shortcomings.

While I stand by the substance of my comments, and the related points I made in previous threads, I must concede Matt’s assertion on the manner in which I have proffered them. (Matt, your apology was gladly accepted, and I’ll take some blame myself.)

My tone has been overly harsh in a way that was not conducive to a productive discussion and my wording has at times evinced a sarcasm that hardly afforded my views a ready reception. That was not appropriate to this forum, especially in addressing individuals whose posts on other topics have been of great value to me.

For this I apologize and pledge to try and do better.

What do you thing about primordial sound meditation. I have gone back to school and they have speakers that come in. Alot of eastern way’s and not something I like to be involved in. I have a very hard time. Not many of the student’s are Christian’s. And, most of the few that are will not speak up and say anything. At times I the only one that disapproves of the speakers that come. (I think out of fear from the school director’s) I believe that the Lord is the only way to true peace. But, sometimes these people try and sound like they are believers of Christ but, have all this extra (???) Like trying to fool some people in to believeing in this garbage…ha! Not me. I believe in the Bible, and what it say’s. I’m I being judgemental or just standing on the word?
Thank you for making time for my question.
Marilyn

A general rule of thumb on meditation is to ask, “What are we meditating about?” In Christian meditation, one is asked to meditate on what is holy, what is good, what is pure. In Eastern meditation, one is asked to meditate on nothing — literally — in order to clear one’s mind, to leave it empty. Many who have been through both forms of religion in their lifetimes have said that this is a form of asking for demonic control over one’s mind by willingly giving up control and leaving one’s mind empty. See the Spiritual Counterfeits Project for sources from Christians who once followed Eastern or New Age religions and who now teach against them (at http://www.scp-inc.org/ especially the Access Hotline materials, such as the Centering Prayer booklet). See Watchman Fellowship at http://www.watchman.org/ for good Christian apologetics material in general. Search around these sites for info on meditation. Feel free to email me if you are unable to find what you are looking for.