« Big rocks keep falling on my head... | Main | DeLay Families Values »

Quote Of The Day - High Priests Edition

"What bugged John Paul II's critics the most, one suspects, was not the moral truths to which he gave modern voice, but his assertion that there could be such a thing as moral truth. This poses a direct challenge to the high priests of secularism who are so desperate to instruct the rest of us on how to live our lives."
Detroit News columnist Thomas Bray on John Paul's 'polarizing papacy.'

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Quote Of The Day - High Priests Edition:

Comments (44)

Thomas Bray writes: ... (Below threshold)
s9:

Thomas Bray writes: What bugged John Paul II's critics the most, one suspects, was not the moral truths to which he gave modern voice, but his assertion that there could be such a thing as moral truth.

Which critics were these? The ones who complained bitterly that the Pope was a vociferous critic of the IraqWar? The ones who called him a "leftist loonie" for decrying the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib?

Bray doesn't say who are these critics he's talking about. Neither does Kevin. All we know is that they are supposedly the "high priests of secularism"— whatever that means. Good grief— how did we leap to that conclusion?

Exactly who called the Pope... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Exactly who called the Pope a "leftist loonie" for decrying the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib s9? I would like quotes please, because as far as I remember, EVERYONE decried abuse at Abu Ghraib. Thats not to say people didn't argue about what ACTUALLY happened there, but I don't remeber ANYONE saying the abuse was a good thing. Some quotes please s9.

I'm not sure how the existe... (Below threshold)
areaman:

I'm not sure how the existence of "moral truth" challenges "the high priests of secularsim who are so desperate to instruct the rest of us on how to live our lives." What is Bray talking about?

Secular "high priests" (whoever Bray is talking about) certainly dont have a corner on the market as far as telling others how to live goes.

In my opinion moral truths exist, but there isnt just one social or cultural group that knows all the correct answers. But thats just an opinion.

John Paul II was an intelligent man, and worth listening to carefully. He was a leader for a reason.

I had to laugh. I heard som... (Below threshold)
julie:

I had to laugh. I heard some report of a poll stating that most Americans want to see woman in the priesthood, allow priests to marry, etc. Not Catholic Americans, mind you, just Americans. Who cares what the public thinks? This isn't religion by popular vote. When the priest sex scandals hit big time a couple a years ago, my moonbat friends were going on and on about the same things. I reminded them that they were not Catholic and what they were proposing were changes in the sacraments. Also, I had to hammer home that marriage - gay or hetereo - is not the cure to pedophilia. Plus, they are nuts if they think the Church is not only going to allow not only married priests, but gay married priests? In your dreams buddy! OMG, just think if you were a lesbian married priest. Three strikes!! It amazes me that left thinking people think they can dictate other people's religion. So, much for the 1rst A.

s9® is now a federally regi... (Below threshold)
julie:

s9® is now a federally registered trademark with national and international protection. Please do not use without my express written permission.

julie:It amazes... (Below threshold)
areaman:

julie:

It amazes me that left thinking people think they can dictate other people's religion.

I agree that Catholics should decide what they do with their religion, and the opions of outsiders isnt relevant.

I do have a bit of a problem when one religious group attempts to claim universal morality or truth, and impose that on other social or religious groups. It happens.

^^typing issues, should rea... (Below threshold)
areaman:

^^typing issues, should read "the opinions of outsiders arent relevant."

sorry. not awake yet.

I do have a bit of a pro... (Below threshold)

I do have a bit of a problem when one religious group attempts to claim universal morality or truth, and impose that on other social or religious groups. It happens.

Yes -- we noticed that on 9/11.

Yes -- we noticed that o... (Below threshold)
areaman:

Yes -- we noticed that on 9/11.

Yes we did. Although they did a little more than just "impose" themselves on 9/11. Nothing like using your extremist religion to justify your actions. But thats not very unique.

I have a problem with relig... (Below threshold)

I have a problem with religious groups who don't claim to have a universal morality or truth.
Truths that are not universal are hardly truths.

'I do have a bit of a probl... (Below threshold)
Yahweh:

'I do have a bit of a problem when one religious group attempts to claim universal morality or truth, and impose that on other social or religious groups.'

Mock me now, pay later.

I have a problem with re... (Below threshold)
areaman:

I have a problem with religious groups who don't claim to have a universal morality or truth.

Question: if multiple religious groups claim universal morality, but with differing opinions of what that means, then who is right? None of them? All of them? Or the one that you believe in?

Truths that are not universal are hardly truths.

Truth isnt exactly a hard science you know. Pretty subjective stuff.

Mock me now, pay later.<... (Below threshold)
shiva:

Mock me now, pay later.

Oh, are you on shift right now?

No...mock ME now, pay later... (Below threshold)
Zeus:

No...mock ME now, pay later.

"if multiple religious grou... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"if multiple religious groups claim universal morality, but with differing opinions of what that means, then who is right? None of them? All of them? Or the one that you believe in?"

This is really a stupid question. On things that are or moral importance, I have no problem with choosing sides.

If religious group A thinks child sacrifice is a great idea, and group B thinks it is evil, I am going with group B, with no questions asked.

When it comes to incidentals, well you worry about your truth, and they can worry about theirs and all will be sorted out later.

I would agree that imposing ones own morals on people is not generally a good idea, but I have no issues with various groups believing their truths are the Truth, but to go around acting as if all morals are relative or are equally good is just plain stupid.

s9, s9, s9... (Below threshold)
dfb:

s9, s9, s9

Just Me:This is... (Below threshold)
areaman:

Just Me:

This is really a stupid question. On things that are or moral importance, I have no problem with choosing sides.

If religious group A thinks child sacrifice is a great idea, and group B thinks it is evil, I am going with group B, with no questions asked.

Thats nice that you thinks its a stupid question. And remember, your idea of what is morally important may differ from others...and they might have beliefs that are just as strong as yours.

Your example is pretty clear cut to me as well, although I might ask a few questions to see what the deal is with group A.

How about this: Group A believes that Yahweh is the one and only God, while Group B believes that Allah is the one and only God. Who is right?

I would agree that imposing ones own morals on people is not generally a good idea, but I have no issues with various groups believing their truths are the Truth, but to go around acting as if all morals are relative or are equally good is just plain stupid.

I wouldnt ever say that I think that all truths are equally good. But I have to keep in mind the fact that people have beliefs that contradict my own, and that doesnt mean that they are stupid or evil automatically. In the end we all choose what we feel is right and wrong, based on our beliefs and upbringing, etc.


I don't want to see priests... (Below threshold)
McCain:

I don't want to see priests marry or chicks on the alter. I like the traditions of my church, and I am amused by public polling on these matters. Only one out of sixteen Catholics lives in the U.S, so even a poll of American Catholics wouldn't have any importance.

That said, one would not reasonably argue that priest celibacy is a "moral truth." St. Peter was married with children. St. Paul only encouraged celibacy but required priests to live in monogamy. Married priests were common enough before the middle-ages. Priest celibacy has been codified in church law for only 900 years.

This isn't a well written article......

Bray says that these mechnical considerations are secondary to the "great issues of human rights, examples of which are found in fascism and communism. Duh.

Then he says the Pope's views deserve a good listen rather than dismissal. Yes indeed.

Then he concludes with this paragraph about moral truths which makes in unclear to which he is referring. It can't be homosexual unions, for example, because he already allowed there can be reasonable disagreement about it, and that it is relatively unimportant to the great issues of human rights. Moral truths would be important and unarguable.

We are left relating his "moral truths" to fascism and communism, to which nobody would argue, even the mystical high priests of secularism. In the end, the article seems to make no useful point.

In the end, the article ... (Below threshold)
areaman:

In the end, the article seems to make no useful point.

I'll second that.

How about this: Gro... (Below threshold)

How about this: Group A believes that Yahweh is the one and only God, while Group B believes that Allah is the one and only God. Who is right?

There's no way for humanity to come to an objective unanimous irrefutable decision, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a correct answer to that question. (A, B, or neither.)

Even in our search for scientific truth, we never actually approach the full Truth. The truth as a whole is impossible for any one of us to fully know.

However, that doesn't mean that there isn't a full objective Truth. People need to have a blance between believing that there is a full objective Truth, and believing that they are the one who has it all right. Ultimately, though, people think that what they believe is the truth, and to insist that no one should tell anyone else that they are right and the other person is wrong, is to deny that. There's no reason for people not to talk about what the truth is, and to think that they are right and others are wrong, so long as they are willing to accept their inevitable mistakes.

dfb: You'll be hearing from... (Below threshold)
julie:

dfb: You'll be hearing from my attorney, wiseass.

Raina -Allah is me... (Below threshold)
Yahweh:

Raina -

Allah is me. OK. We're the same. Mine is the true name. Sabe?

From Hannity & Colmes</b... (Below threshold)
s9:

From Hannity & Colmes in January 2003.


COLMES: …And before you respond, let me just put up what the pope says.

“No to war,” says Pope John Paul II. “during his annual address to scores of diplomatic emissaries to the Vatican… ‘War is not always inevitable,’ he said. ‘It is always a defeat for humanity.’”

Are these a bunch of wild-eyed liberal loonies?

HANNITY: Yes.

-----

Okay, "wild-eyed liberal loonies" is not the same as "leftist loonies" so I guess I didn't have the exact quote.

Oh and while we're on the s... (Below threshold)
s9:

Oh and while we're on the subject of people with weird opinions of the Pope after the Abu Ghraib revelations, consider the comments in this Freeperville thread.


The Pope also objected to us going into Kuwait, to liberate from Iraq, but didn't object, when Saddam took over Kuwait.

It's a FACT that the Pope met with Saddam's Deputy prime minister -- so it's just a lucky thing, that AL zawahiri didn't ask for an audience.

The problem is that the Pope and many pacifists make a moral equivalence between the real evil and those who are fighting it.

It would be nice if conservatives could figure out who are the loonie critics of the Pope who have a problem with his "assertion that there could be such a thing as moral truth."

Actually in all fairness th... (Below threshold)
wannabe:

Actually in all fairness that is not what bothers many of the critics of Pope John Paul II. I cannot speak for all of them however.

As Carl Bernstein rightly alluded to on Scarborough Country, the fact of the matter is the Catholic Church has changed a great deal since its creation about 300 AD ish, I believe. I mean it's been centuries since we had a good Inquisition.

Let's face it, all the religious traditions have changed to some degree over time. After all slavery was condoned by all the monotheistic religions at one time or another.

Yes there are certain moral truths but certain truths are relative. And certain dogma of the Catholic Church is man-made doctrine, not rooted in the Bible and/or subject to broad interpretations.

Let's take the one child per family policy in China. It seems rather draconian and certainly is against most religious teachings. Go forth and multiply sayeth the Lord.

But is the starvation of millions of Chinese, which would have been the result had the Chinese government not put on some brakes to population growth, and may yet happen, any less unsavoury?

John Paul II also believed all war is wrong. How wonderful he is so comfortable in the knowledge that an Adolph Hitler will not rise again or the Saddam Husseins of the world can be dealt with diplomatically.

How many here subscribe to that moral truth? Of course I think the latter may have been the Pope's personal moral truth rather than the official position of the Church.

Here is a prime example:</p... (Below threshold)
wannabe:

Here is a prime example:

A few of you don't want your priests to be able to marry because you like your tradition.

Hello celibacy of the priesthood was not the original tradition of the Church.

I quote:

"Celibacy has not always been a requirement for priests or other clergy members.... but if Jesus really did place such a high value on celibacy, why were most if not all of his apostles married? Surely he could have found unmarried people to follow him.

"It wasn't until 1139, with the Second Lateran Council, that mandatory celibacy was officially imposed on all priests. Any marriage entered into by a priest was regarded as invalid and anyone currently married had to separate from their spouses - leaving them to whatever fate God had in store for them, even if it meant leaving them destitute. Of course this was an immoral thing to do to those spouses, and many clergy realized that there was little religious or traditional basis for it, so they defied that order and continued in their marriages.

http://atheism.about.com/od/romancatholicism/a/celibacy_2.htm

So what is the Eastern Orthodox Church, radicals?

It would be nice if cons... (Below threshold)
julie:

It would be nice if conservatives could figure out who are the loonie critics of the Pope

We have: YOU.

As Carl Bernstein rightl... (Below threshold)
julie:

As Carl Bernstein rightly alluded to on Scarborough Country, the fact of the matter is the Catholic Church has changed a great deal since its creation about 300 AD ish, I believe.

Oh, cool! Who better to criticize the Catholic Church than that great Catholic, that man who never broke a commandment, can't keep it in his pants -- Carl Bernstein!

I mean it's been centuries since we had a good Inquisition.

Don't knock the Inquisition. I heard it was the better court to go before.

Let's take the one child per family policy in China.

Uh, no. It's off topic.

John Paul II also believed all war is wrong.

Do you have a direct quote to that effect in context? I can believe that the Pope believed that all war that is preventable is wrong. I find it difficult to believe that he thought all war under any circumstances was wrong. As to whether the Iraq war could have been avoided is not necessarily a "moral truth." And like anyone else, the Pope can be wrong. He's the Pope – not God.

Hello celibacy of the priesthood was not the original tradition of the Church.

Hi!!!!!
How many centuries does it take before something is deemed a tradition? And frankly, I don't think labeling it merely a “tradition” is correct. Is this your way of minimizing it?

[snip quote from wacko atheist website about Catholicism.]

And you want to be taken seriously??? Come up with something better than that.

So what is the Eastern Orthodox Church, radicals?

Yes! But, shhhhhh! They don't know it yet. I, however, prefer to think of them as Rogue Catholics.

John Paul II was destined t... (Below threshold)
paul - uk -:

John Paul II was destined to provoke debate with his strong beliefs. He had absolute faith in the ethical righteousness of the Christian message combined with boundless hope that, if he could only steer people towards examining their own souls, then they too would want more than mere materialism to be at the heart of their existence. In his faith, the Pope had defied traditional left-right definitions, particularly those of the self-described Western modernists. He will be a hard act to follow, but there remains much work to be done in addressing the needs of the dispossessed and the spiritually impoverished.

"Group A believes that Yahw... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"Group A believes that Yahweh is the one and only God, while Group B believes that Allah is the one and only God. Who is right?"

Who knows, other than I am confident in my rightness, group B can feel equally confident in theirs, and we will figure out the answers on the other side. But my belief that my God is the one true God isn't going to change because you don't like my conclusions. Feel free to draw your own, but your insistance that I can't believe in a specific set of moral truths is just as bad as somebody insisting that you must follow mine.

"But I have to keep in mind the fact that people have beliefs that contradict my own, and that doesnt mean that they are stupid or evil automatically. "

I don't think anyone who believes differently than me is evil or stupid. I do think that there are some moral standards though, and things that aren't in line with those standards I have no problems calling evil. I do not believe at all in moral relativism. Some things are just wrong.

I would also point out that... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I would also point out that there is a difference between morals, church tradition and to some degree church doctrine (if you want to get into the differences in various religious sects especially Christian ones).

A moral truth would be something along the lines of a prohibition against adultery or murder.

A church tradition is probably where priests being married or requirements for celibacy would come in, although some may say it falls more into doctrine, I won't quibble on that one.

Doctrinal differences would be things like Baptism, observances/sacraments, etc.

Seems like in this discussion we are confusing them.

Just Me:But my ... (Below threshold)
areaman:

Just Me:

But my belief that my God is the one true God isn't going to change because you don't like my conclusions.

Hmmm...I never meant to infer that. I think that your conclusions are perfectly respectable and valid, actually.

Feel free to draw your own [conclusions], but your insistance that I can't believe in a specific set of moral truths is just as bad as somebody insisting that you must follow mine.

Of course you can believe in a specific set of moral truths...I dont remember saying that you cant. Beside that, who would I be to tell you what they can and cannot believe?

Look, the only thing I'm suggesting is that different groups of people might believe in "truths" that contradict each other. That doesnt really bother me.

Seems like in this discussion we are confusing them.

Ya...I said "moral truths" way back there and meant to include a more general term.

As far as moral truths go, maybe there are some regarding murder and the "golden rule" kind thing that apply pretty universally. But even concepts like what consitutes adultery in different cultures varies alot.

I agree though that its important to separate moral truths from doctrine and tradition.


The reason that celibacy wa... (Below threshold)

The reason that celibacy was required of priests because back then, wives also had custody of the husband's estate. And also, back then, the church actually OWNED property. It's slightly different now. Vatican I reformed the church from a lot of that. The big deal with wives and families is that a priest must not be placed in the unfortunate position of wanting or having to put his family first before his priestly vocation.

Also, it's fairly symbolic. The priest is seen as to "marry" the church.

Actually, the "moral absolu... (Below threshold)

Actually, the "moral absolutism" is being mistaken by a bunch of people here. The big thing that Pope John Paul II was pushing was that morals had to come from SOMEWHERE. It's all relative! If the whole of society never felt that stealing was wrong, then by golly, you have the RIGHT to steal from your neighbor! What he was saying was that a higher power was needed to impose morals and higher truths, they aren't necessarily truths in and of themselves.

Take a class on morality and/or ethics someday. The discussion in those classes can be very enlightening (if the professor doesn't try to impose his/her beliefs on you).

The only moral truth here h... (Below threshold)
Doug Book:

The only moral truth here has to do with why liberals like Christian Amanpour believe it their duty to point out the failings of John Paul with each sound bite. They are astounded and undoubtedly annoyed that a closed-minded, mean-spirited conservative could elicit such a remarkable outpouring of respect, affection and love from people all over the world.

RightWriter

Areaman said he had a probl... (Below threshold)

Areaman said he had a problem with religious groups who claim to have universal morality or truth. I said that I have a problem with religious groups who don't claim to have a universal morality or truth.

Areaman says:
Question: if multiple religious groups claim universal morality, but with differing opinions of what that means, then who is right? None of them? All of them? Or the one that you believe in?

DeputyHeadmistress: This really is beside the point- I make no statement about which group is right.

The point is that it's foolish to say it's wrong for a religion to make a claim to have universal truth. The merits of any given claim may be wrong, but that's not what we were talking about. You said you had a problem with religions claiming to have universal truth, and that's just unreasonable. If a religion must be so wishy washy as to be unclear about what it believes about something, then Why bother? Who would join a church promoting mush on purpose?
That religion may or may not be wrong- I'm not getting in to that as it is a completely different question. The point is that there is nothing objectionable about believing one's religion is true. I would hope that nobody is a member of a religious organization they believe to be untrue. One could be mistaken, and that could have grave consequences, but believing in universal truth itself is not a bad thing, even though one may be wrong about what those universal truths are.

I said:

Truths that are not universal are hardly truths.

AReaman said:
Truth isnt exactly a hard science you know. Pretty subjective stuff.

DeputyHeadmistress: Actually, no. Truth is not subjective. Truth is objectively truth, regardless of what we believe about it, regardless of the number of polls taken about it, or the various views.
We may reach our own conclusions subjectively, and in error, but this does not make genuine Truth subjective. Truth is Truth, independent of your ideas or mine.

Celibacy for Catholic Pries... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Celibacy for Catholic Priests is an aspect of them vowing to assume, represent and behold the person of Jesus Christ. Their vows are to be as He was while here on Earth, the shephards of Jesus' flock, as has and does Jesus Christ also shephard.

The idea of Priests marrying -- whether past and/or as some suggest ought to be the future -- although a convenient one as to make the Priesthood "more attractive" to some, would change (and did, earlier) the nature of who Priests are, of their religious representation and fulfillment among others on behalf of the Church.

People decry celibacy as being some "human invention" and yet, they miss the spiritual point (a very important one) of the vows themselves and why they exist. The property issues were secondary at times past.

Henry: to my knowledge, it... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Henry: to my knowledge, it is religous orders of females among Catholics whose vows include a marriage type/level relationship to the Church, but it isn't the Church so much as it is to marry Christ...SPIRITUALLY. Again, some people just cannot perceive a difference there and have to include sexuality and sexual intimacies and references to those vows, the defining of that relationship, but the vows are of a spiritual nature. As was Jesus Christ's relationship to His followers, to those who believe in Him...it is a spiritual relationship.

Julie Julie don't shoot the... (Below threshold)
wannabe:

Julie Julie don't shoot the messenger - I only quoted Carl because he is the most recent person
to make that point, in a very civil discourse with Pat Buchanan I might add.

Has or has not the Catholic Church changed one iota since its creation? I noted you didn't challenge my basic argument.

I've just given two examples :

Slavery was condoned if not encouraged by all the major religions at one point. The universal position on slavery has changed so most of us condone slavery, except some Islamic holdouts.

Catholic priests were in fact allowed to be married until 1139 and they still are in the Orthodox tradition. Apparently most of Jesus's apostles were married, gosh darn, does that fact taint their commitment to spreading the Gospel, I don't think so. Does that say that Eastern Orthodox priests are unless effective or holy? I don't think so. Are Protestant ministers any less effective in spreading the word of Jesus, married or single, I don't think so. Has it ever occured to you Julie that maybe the Roman church are the rogues - well Martin Luther would sure say so, LOL, and maybe the Eastern Orthodoxy got it right?

I'm sorry, I believe the property issues were primary not secondary but all ruling elites in religions can and have found religious justifications for their agenda, whether Christianity or Islam or whatever.

I think you could also argue the amassing of extraordinary wealth by the apostles was not in Jesus's teachings but that has never stopped the Catholic Church. I personally think Jesus would be appalled but that's just my interpretation of the Gospels - I always saw Jesus as preferring the humble simple approach. But I guess that is why we had the Protestant Reformation anyhoo. Well of course you can also blame Henry the VIII who decided to start his own religion so he could get a divorce. You gotta marvel at that kind of power. I'm pissed off, I'm going to start a new religion, so there! Such is the power of ruling elites huh.

I mean I heard many Catholics on talk radio criticizing all the Catholics flocking to Rome to see the Pope lying in state - they were claiming it was in fact idolatry which is against church teachings. So are they wrong?


DeputyHeadmistress:<p... (Below threshold)
areaman:

DeputyHeadmistress:

You said you had a problem with religions claiming to have universal truth, and that's just unreasonable.

Actually, this is what I wrote:

I do have a bit of a problem when one religious group attempts to claim universal morality or truth, and impose that on other social or religious groups.

You forgot the second part of the sentence, which is important to what I was saying. Christians have their beliefs of what truth is, Hindus have theirs, Native Americans have theirs, etc. I have respect for all of them, and feel that none is any more correct or right.

For me its a little problematic when one group with a certain worldview goes around claiming that theirs is THE ONLY CORRECT version of reality or truth. I think its pretty egocentric to believe that your group has all the right answers, while others that are just as old or older are simply wrong.

Why cant both be right? Does it matter?

The point is that there is nothing objectionable about believing one's religion is true.

For me the only objectionable part is when people then claim that others must be "wrong" in order to belive that their religion is right.

I think its good that Christians believe what they do, but that doesnt mean that I think that Native American mythologies and beliefs are false, and that doesnt mean that I think that Buddhism is false. They're just different solutions to the same questions or problems. They all work.

Actually, no. Truth is not subjective. Truth is objectively truth, regardless of what we believe about it, regardless of the number of polls taken about it, or the various views.

Truth is a human concept. You cant quantify it, and you cant look at it. Its immaterial. Truth is dependent on point of view, and dependent on interpretation, among other things. It's not some clear objective thing. But thats just my opinion, and you can disagree. If I dont agree with what your definition of truth is, does that make me stupid, or does that mean the idea of "truth" may not be as clear cut as you think?

Here's a little story, told via Ben Franklin: He was talking to a Native American man who was upset. The man said: You told us your beliefs about your God, and we believed them, and that was fine. But when we told you about our beliefs, you said they were false. That is not fair or right. (paraphased)

I think that the Native American man had a pretty good point...that nobody has the only claim on truth.


And exactly what does Berns... (Below threshold)
julie:

And exactly what does Bernstein add to the debate? He's not a theologian, nor a historian, nor even a Catholic. And, one wouldn't ordinarily find the words “Bernstein” and “morals” in the same sentence. As to what he actually said, and that you say personifies the point others have made, I say, what point? That the church has changed a great deal since 300 A.D.? So, what? What hasn't changed a great deal since 300 A.D.? They have electric lights in churches today. A couple of hundred years ago, they had candles. A thousand years ago, torches. How is that relevant to anything? Because it is merely “change”? Again, so what?

I noted you didn't challenge my basic argument.

What basic argument? That things change over 1700 years? Is that something so profound it needs to be argued or challenged? Isn't what is more important is what changes and what remains the same?

As to your examples, so what? Are you equating the fact that catholic priests aren't allowed to marry with slavery? That's extreme and also explains where you are coming from, unfortunately.

And, why is it that the people most obsessed with priests having the right to marry are non- Catholics, atheists, and a number of other suspect groups? (Christian Swingers, for one. Between you and me, I don't think they are very good Christians.) Hmm, it does make one suspicious about what people's true motives might be.

Catholic priests were in fact allowed to be married until 1139

No, they weren't. Pope Gregory VII issued an edict in 1139 but there were similar edicts issued in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. While initially it may not have been banned, it was not encouraged. There are also references that the tradition of celibacy stretched back to the apostles. And, don't confuse men leaving a marriage and entering the clergy with priests getting married.

they still are in the Orthodox tradition.

Since, we are talking about the Catholic and not the Orthodox church, so what?.

Apparently most of Jesus's apostles were married, gosh darn, does that fact taint their commitment to spreading the Gospel, I don't think so.

So what? Exactly what was each apostles marriage status and when? Were they living with their wives? If a man marries and his wife dies, is he forbidden from entering the priesthood? And, it appears a number of men, though married, entered the clergy and stopped conjugal relations with their spouse. They became celibate in order to dedicate themselves to the Church and emulate Christ. They did not get married. And if some actually went against the teaching of the church, so what? That does not change the teachings of the church.

Does that say that Eastern Orthodox priests are unless effective or holy?

It doesn't say that they are more effective or holy. And it definitely says they are not Catholic priests.

Are Protestant ministers any less effective in spreading the word of Jesus, married or single, I don't think so.

See above.

Has it ever occured to you Julie that maybe the Roman church are the rogues -

Has it ever occurred to you wannabee that you are spouting fad-ish revisionist history, promoted by people with intent on harming the church and that your own motives are not so pure?

well Martin Luther would sure say so, LOL,

He would also say, “ Let's go burn some Jews, yeah!”

and maybe the Eastern Orthodoxy got it right?

For Eastern Orthodoxs? Don't know. Don't care. Since, the discussion is the Catholic, not the Eastern Orthodox, Church. I mean, is this your argument? That because another religion does it the Catholics have to do it too?!!!! Yikes! Why bother!

I'm sorry, I believe the property issues were primary not secondary but all ruling elites in religions can and have found religious justifications for their agenda, whether Christianity or Islam or whatever.

Nice non sequitur. As far as “religious justifications for their agenda” I'm not buying yours, the non-Catholics, the atheists, and those who want to boink ten of their neighbors while their wives watch.

I think you could also argue the amassing of extraordinary wealth by the apostles was not in Jesus's teachings but that has never stopped the Catholic Church.

You could. I wouldn't. It is beyond the topic of your initial posts and my answers.

I personally think Jesus would be appalled but that's just my interpretation of the Gospels - I always saw Jesus as preferring the humble simple approach. But I guess that is why we had the Protestant Reformation anyhoo.

We? You betray your true motives once again.

Well of course you can also blame Henry the VIII who decided to start his own religion so he could get a divorce. You gotta marvel at that kind of power. I'm pissed off, I'm going to start a new religion, so there! Such is the power of ruling elites huh.

Now, you are being demeaning.

I mean I heard many Catholics on talk radio criticizing all the Catholics flocking to Rome to see the Pope lying in state - they were claiming it was in fact idolatry which is against church teachings. So are they wrong?

Do you really think I give a shit what some people allegedly said on talk radio? And why oh why would you?

St. Peter, married with chi... (Below threshold)
McCain:

St. Peter, married with children, was named the rock that the church would be build upon, the first Pope, by Christ Himself. It seems that Christ didn't have a problem with married priests, and why would He? That was the Jewish tradition, and He didn't speak to the issue in the testaments. So unless God changed His mind, we already know what God thinks about this question. And so do all of the other Christian reform denominations. So let's not make this into something it isn't. It is purely a tradition.

Which, by the way, is good enough for me. I like the traditions of the church and so I don't want to see married priests or chick priests. There is an awesome power and beauty to the ancient traditions are humbling and inspiring. They should not be minimized, or tampered with lightly, and I especially don't appreciate hecklers from the outside thinking we need some advice on this issue.

The complicating factor is the shortage of priests in the West. This is a big problem, and that problem can't be talked around as if it isn't a central challenge within the church. Someday we MAY have to solve it with married priests. But that is someday. We can close some churches and suffer first -- Catholics are good at that.


Yeah, let's not make it int... (Below threshold)
julie:

Yeah, let's not make it into something it's not. There were men who married and then joined the clergy which is not the same as priests marrying. Oh, and when did Peter's wife die? You seem to be saying that Christ didn't have a problem of priests being married based on the fact that Peter was at one time married. That's a bit of an assumption. It may have been the Jewish tradition, but guess what – it was now the Christian era. And, if people want to subscribe to Christian reform beliefs, they are free to do so, but they are not Catholic beliefs. And why does everyone assume that the only way to increase the number of priests is by allowing marriage? It's just another means of attacking Catholic beliefs.

We're not going to clone th... (Below threshold)
McCain:

We're not going to clone them witih stem cells, Julie. And you babes ain't gonna be priests either. Do you have a solution to the problem, assuming you agree with me that we should not allow priests to marry? Discussion is not an attack, Julie. If you are involved in the church, rather than just an armchair ponitificantor, you know this debate is occuring and will continue to occur in the future. I'm glad you are joining me in resisting it.

You are correct that we don't know when St. Paul's wife died. All we know is Christ was with him at one point while he was married. That's it. And we know that Christ said NOTHING about this topic in scripture. And we know Christ wasn't married. That's it. Again, the tradition of priests cannot marry, important like all traditions in the church, is a tradition. That is a good thing, Julie, not an attack.

Listen to the seminary schools, if you want your last question answered.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy