There’s a story that’s been percolating around some quarters for the last few days, but until recently it hasn’t breached the English-speaking news net. It’s likely to.
The nub of the story is this: In 1970 the young(er) theologian Joseph Ratzinger signed a letter to the German conference of bishops suggesting that the Church reconsider the practice of clerical celibacy as the norm for the Latin Church.
Given the MSM’s fixation on the Catholic Church and sex—and particularly its dislike of clerical celibacy—this story could potentially gain traction.
So far, it’s been picked up by the UK-based Catholic Herald, by one of USA Today’s blogs, as well as a number of other outlets, but it hasn’t gotten major airplay yet.
I’ve been holding off covering it for several days in an attempt to unearth a copy of the letter itself, but it isn’t available online, and it appears that the German source which has it may be playing games with it by selectively releasing just parts of it.
This is why it’s always better to read the original documents in their entirety.
In any event, here’s the way the story’s being covered at the moment. The Catholic Herald writes:
Joseph Ratzinger was one of the signatories of a 1970 document calling for an examination of priestly celibacy which was signed by nine theologians.
The memorandum was drawn up in the face of a shortage of priests and other signatories included Karl Rahner and the future cardinals Karl Lehmann and Walter Kasper.
The German newspaper Die Sueddeutsche reported about the document today.
The memorandum, which was sent to the German bishops reads: “Our considerations regard the necessity of a serious investigation and a differentiated inspection of the law of celibacy of the Latin Church for Germany and the whole of the universal Church.”
According to the Sueddeutsche, the document said if there were no such investigation, the bishops’ conference would “awaken the impression that it did not believe in the strength of the Gospel recommendation of a celibate life for the sake of heaven, but rather only in the power of a formal authority”.
If there weren’t enough priests, the document said, then the “Church quite simply has a responsibility to take up certain modifications”.
The signatories who had drawn up the document acted as consultors to the German bishops’ conference in a commission for questions of Faith and Morals.
The document’s release coincides with a renewed debate on priestly celibacy after prominent German politicians called for the Church to change the teaching on priestly celibacy in the face of a serious lack of priests
Since we don’t have the letter itself, I don’t want to comment too much on it, but I will say that I’m not surprised. Throughout his career, Joseph Ratzinger—now Pope Benedict—has displayed an amazing capacity for dialog, discussion, and the calm examination of questions. Even as pope—perhaps especially as pope—when he could exercise his magisterial authority on issue after issue, he has been studiously careful to avoid imposing his personal opinions on matters. If you read his writings and speeches he regularly raises questions for discussion and then does not offer a definitive conclusion. You can generally tell where his own sympathies lie, because after bringing up a topic he will explore a possible solution that he finds “interesting” or “noteworthy,” but then in the end he says something like, “however this may be, let us look at this deeper issue to which the question leads us.” He thus sets aside what is likely his own view, without imposing it on the faithful by his papal authority.
You really gotta admire that. He offers an amazing example of humility and prudence.
Given the serene, open way of approaching controversial questions that has always characterized the man (a habit he may have honed in academia, where detached, scholarly debates are often expected as a matter of professionalism), it isn’t surprising that back in 1970 he and other German theologians would call for a re-examination of the Church’s discipline regarding clerical celibacy.
But a re-examination is just that: a re-examination, not a rejection.
It amounts to proposing the question for study, not leaping straight to the conclusions of that study.
And, such time as we get the actual text of the letter so we can see what was said, we can’t conclude anything more than that: The young Ratzinger and his colleagues suggested that the question of changing the Latin Church’s discipline on celibacy be studied.
This certainly meant that they felt there were sufficient grounds for studying it. But it by no means makes them fire-breathing celibacy haters. One can think a question worth exploring without having pre-determined conclusions in mind.
So we really can’t say what Ratzinger’s mind was at the time, other than that he felt the question should be explored.
Suppose he was, though, of the opinion that the celibacy norm should be changed. What difference does that make?
It would allow some celibacy haters (and associated media types) to score a few rhetorical points (“Why, even the pope used to think this way!”), but this doesn’t add much of a substantive nature to the discussion.
From everything he has said during his pontificate—as well as in recent times before—Pope Benedict seems sold on the value of clerical celibacy in the Latin Church, and not just for utilitarian reasons. That is, not just because it enables priests to devote themselves to full time service of the Gospel. He has specifically articulated the insufficiency of this view, noting also that celibacy conforms one to the eschatological state in which we will be like Christ, for in the next life there will be no marrying and giving in marriage.
On the other hand, Pope Benedict has also been unafraid of having the subject discussed. In the 2005 Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist—the first such synod he presided over—Pope Benedict allowed the bishops in attendance to discuss whether the ordination of married men to the clergy should be further explored. The bishops concluded that the answer (at least at this time) was no.
This was notably different than the way the subject was handled during the reign of John Paul II. At that time the subject was pointedly not on the table, and one can understand why. John Paul II was trying to reign in the chaos that followed the Second Vatican Council and re-stabilize the Church. Amid thunderous calls for married clergy, women’s ordination, and changes on the Church’s teaching on birth control, extra-marital sex, and homosexuality (among other subjects), it’s quite understandable that the pope would feel the need for a collective “time out” on all of these issues, just to let the passions settle and expectations moderate.
By the time of Pope Benedict’s reign, it could well be that the new pontiff judged that the situation had cooled down enough that the question of clerical celibacy could be more fruitfully discussed—a conclusion no doubt shaped by his own personal openness to that kind of discussion.
That won’t stop the press, though, from making it sound like Benedict has done some kind of dramatic about face on the subject, or that he is somehow hypocritically masking his true views—should they take note of the story and decide to give it play.
The truth is that was neither a fire-breathing celibacy hater back in 1970, nor is he a dyed-in-the-wool celibacy insister now. He was, and is, a man of thoughtful reflection, intellectual humility, and openness to the discussion of difficult questions.
Or that’s my opinion.
What do you think?
Jimmy, I would strongly suggest that you and anyone coming upon this post go to http://www.podles.org for a discussion of this exact same letter. Leon Podles is a faithful Catholic who has been investigating the problem of clerical sex abuse, and has written books on that subject and on the feminizing of Christianity. His insights are valuable.
The Eastern Orthodox has had a married clergy since the beginning. The Eastern Catholic Church ordains married men, and Eastern Catholic Bishops in America continue to do so.
There is room for both a married and celibate priesthood in the Catholic Church because it is an orthodox practice. One needs to stop thinking that the Latin way is the only way or the only normative way. It isn’t.
The latin Rite Church can continue its discipline of celibacy. However, I think that we all need to be clear that a married priesthood is rather normative in other Orthodox and Catholic traditions.
In short, the latin tradition is not the only one, and a married priesthood does not do harm to the theology of the priesthood by any means.
The Church should have a both-and (as the practice has most ancient roots).
As an aside.
Why is Father Ratzinger wearing a SUIT!!!???
I was always taught to believe that a priest must always wear clerical garb when in public.
Though I would like to comment on this subject, I pretty much completely agree with what you said about this particular issue and about the larger matter of priestly celibacy in the Latin Church in a recent article, a few weeks ago (Latin priests’ discipline of celibacy can be debated amongst faithful Catholics ; however, it seems to have powerful practical and theological justifications ; moreover, the suppression of this requirement would have enormous, unpredictable consequences and the matter should therefore be weighed accordingly).
As a consequence, the only thing I will comment on is the extremely odd visual of Joseph Ratzinger in a suit ;-). Where did you find it and do you have any clue when this picture was taken ? And above all, how could you not realize that choosing this picture to illustrate this article would lead to a huge proportion of comments related not to the issue at stake, but rather simply about Joseph Ratzinger in a suit 😉 ?
Celibacy, we are told, is a gift to assist priests in devoting their lives and work solely to their Lord and God. It should not be seen, but often is, as a burden and that is why the subject is sometimes referred to as the “problem” with priestly vocations.
To me, the problem is really an inaccurate and faulty concept of the priestly vocation in the first place – i.e., giving oneself fully and completely to Almighty God. It must be very difficult for married priests and deacons to care for their families while giving full service to God. Having said that, I don’t intend to imply that they are not giving full service to God – just that it must be very difficult.
I’ve made a (fairly quick) translation of the letter (as republished by Pipeline in the 2/2010 issue) into English:
http://www.pathsoflove.com/blog/ratzinger-rahner-et-al-on-celibacy-1970/
Ron Conte, the lack of detailed agreement on the “Sachfrage selbst” refers to the fact that the signatories haven’t agreed upon a common position in regard to the role of celibacy: for instance, whether the priesthood in the Latin Church should remain restricted to celibate men, or whether it should be opened to celibate and to married men, as in the East. Basically the one substantial point they all agree on is that the question of whether mandatory celibacy should be continued should be seriously raised, and seriously examined.
It’s not clear, Jimmy, why you say that “it appears that the German source which has it may be playing games with it by selectively releasing just parts of it”? The Sueddeutsche article reporting on it is a bit careful in its language, saying that the reprint by Pipeline is “supposedly” the complete text (angeblich vollständig im Wortlaut). But are there any positive claims that they left something out?
Dear “Dan” and “Thibaud,”
I am surprised to read your questions about the photograph of Father J. Ratzinger wearing a suit and necktie. Such photos have been shown in the Catholic press and “blogosphere” for many years.
Recall that Mr. Akin’s thread is about a letter signed by theologians in 1970, which is probably not far from the time when the photo in question was taken. I don’t think that James had a provocative intention, but only a desire to show the subject of the thread as he looked around the time he signed the letter.
I am not able to say whether Fr. Ratzinger was required (by Pope Paul VI, by the then-bishops of Germany, or by the 1917 Code of Canon Law) to wear clerical garb in 1970. Perhaps there was a universal law to that effect, but with a local indult. At any rate, it is possible (although very undesirable, in my opinion) for priests to be so garbed licitly nowadays, based on the following canon from the 1983 Code:
Canon 284 — Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical garb according to the norms issued by the conference of bishops and according to legitimate local customs.
Please focus only on the true topic of this thread. Thank you.
Dear Jimmy,
Can you explain why the Bishops did not require married Deacons to practice continence when the Diaconate was re-instated post Vatican II?
My understanding of CIC 277 is that it states all clergy should practice continence. I believe the Code of Canon Law allows for married men to be ordained to the permanent Diaconate (i.e. the celibacy requirement is lifted), but it does not lift the continence requirement.
How could the Bishops decide to implement a practice that goes directly against Canon Law?
Thank you.
p.s. For further reading please see Edward Peters excellent summary:
http://www.canonlaw.info/Studia%20c.%20277.pdf
Ray makes a good point, that is worthy of discussion. Hopefully Mr. Akin will tackle this one.
I think that Dan hit the nail on the head with: “It must be very difficult for married priests and deacons to care for their families while giving full service to God.”
I think that you can’t give yourself 100% to your family AND to the church. Just picture this: you’ve set an appointment to take your wife to the beautician’s (or wherever) and your parish priest calls asking you to perform some parish related duties at the same time the appointment is due because the person who should have done it couldn’t make it for some reason. Something has to give. You can’t refuse said duties with a “No can do. Got to take the wife to the hairdresser’s.” Alternatively you’d have to fit your married life around church functions and “activities” That wouldn’t be fair on your wife and kids then, would it?
How can the hierarchy expect Deacons to practice continence
when they do not enforce it on “married adulterers” whose
annulments are denied? Such as these are welcomed,
prominently, in Catholic parishes. Why should Deacons not
be shown the same deference?
Lord, save us from our bishops and our Pope!
Karl, I’m not sure what you mean by “enforce”, but every right-thinking priest I’ve ever heard talk on the subject of “married adulterers” (your term, not mine) DO expect continence. I’m not sure how the Church is to “enforce” that, but it is the expectation. My question was NOT about whether the Church should expect continence from it’s married Deacons, but rather how the practice of allowing non-continence started in the first place, when Canon Law prohibits it. Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.
I sure hope that Jimmy or somebody comes by and addresses this question of Deacons and “continence”.
I’m reading into this that Deacons are not supposed to have marital relations with their wives, and that married Priests, from other rites, are not as well. That’s frankly not my understanding, and I hope somebody clears it up. We may be creating quite a bit of confusion here.
The Current Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church [1983] states in Canon 277:
“Can. 277 §1 Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven, and are therefore bound to celibacy. Celibacy is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbour.”
Ordained Deacons are clergy and acccording to current Canon Law, are “bound to celibacy”.
Yeoman,
In looking around, the issue has been discussed, quite at length here (look in the comments section for a long discussion):
http://pilgrimsfootsteps.blogspot.com/2011/01/so-sexuality-and-sexual-continence.html
The bottom line is the Church is obliged to follow Her own Canon Law.
In the case of Canon 277 Clerics are bound to be celibate, legally.
It would seem that the wording here is straightforward and in need of no interpretation:
“Can. 277 §1 Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven, and are therefore bound to celibacy.”
An ordained permanent Deacon is a cleric and according to law must remain celibate.
and has been pointed out in that long discussion: the rights of the spouse supercedes this since she cannot be denied of her conjugal rights which existed before ordination.
The law says what it says. No one is denying that. However, it is in the “application” of the law, where it all gets sticky.
Dan, thanks. I still hope Jimmy weighs in.
All I can say is that being married, and having to abstain, would be darned hard. Better to not be married under those circumstances.
“and has been pointed out in that long discussion: the rights of the spouse supercedes this since she cannot be denied of her conjugal rights which existed before ordination.
The law says what it says. No one is denying that. However, it is in the “application” of the law, where it all gets sticky.”
That does make sense.
Indeed, I believe that spouses have a veto over a husband becoming a Deacon, should they choose to exercise it. And as they are not taking any sort of a vow, they could not be bound or deprived by their husbands doing so.
That would also explain why a Deacon cannot remarry, should his spouse pass away.
Just a point of clarification: celibacy is to remain unmarried and continence is to abstain from “the act” (if you know what I mean). The issue here is that the expectation of celibacy (as expressed in CIC 277) is lifted (elsewhere in Canon Law), but the expectation of continence is not. The general practice, of course, has been that Deacons are not bound to either celibacy (if they are already married) or continence. Hence my question about how this jives with Canon Law.
I’m coming to this discussion late, but I saw this discussed by the American Papist, Thomas Peters. He refers to his father, noted canon lawyer, Ed Peters, for more details.
http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/
http://www.canonlaw.info/Chicago%20Studies.pdf
Hope this helps!
Greg
Ray,
I think the whole point of Dr. Peters is that it simply doesn’t jive.
He states on his blog, that when the 1983 code was being finalized, that canonists sought to enter language into the code about this particular situation, but JPII rejected those inclusions, and let the code stand as it was promulgated.
To Dr. Peter’s, he asserts that this is compelling proof that the Church intended that ordained Deacons who are married practice continence.
However, it seems that the practical application of this has not been present at all since the permanent diaconate was restored in the 1960’s.
In talking about this very subject to a friend who is a married ordained Catholic deacon, he stated that the only instruction that a married deacon is given is that if he is pre-deceased by his wife he cannot remarry without a papal dispensation, which can only be requested on three grounds. The main one is if the deacon has young children and these children would profit from motherly care with a re-marriage. This can be granted on the basis of pastoral economy.
At no point is the spouse or the candidate for ordination to the order of deacon informed that they must live in perpetual continence, nor must either of them affirm to live this way before the candidate is ordained.
As you said, I think that Dr. Peter’s is pointing out that the law does not jive with the praxis.
I think his point is that the Church should, indeed address this one way or the other. He doesn’t tell the Church what they should do. He only points out that this disconnect is truly problematic.
I would agree with that.
Gentlemen,
Catholics love to say the ‘church is the bulwark of truth’ which is taken from 1 Tim 3:15. Several verses later in 1 Tim 4, Paul explains about what constitutes deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
1 Timothy 4:1-5 (NIV) : 1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
Notice that one of the signs of an apostate church is forbidding people to marry. Let us see the Catholic church forbids Nuns and Priests from marrying. Maybe that should be a read flag that the Catholic Church is ‘NOT the bulwark of truth’. Look I can claim that I am a championship quarterback with the Green Bay Packers, but that does not make it true.
Bart,
Your false syllogism isn’t very sophisticated.
Dan S,
Your rebuttal is quite weak. Let me heap some more coals. The Bible gives clear requirements for being a elder/priest in the church. Interestingly this also comes from 1 Timothy 3
Qualifications for Overseers and Deacons
1 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.
So one of the requirements for managing the church is managing his own family (verse 5). How can a priest be tested to show he is a good leader unless he has a wife and children that can validate to everyone the effectiveness of his leadership?
So Dan S, I look forward to a rebuttal with some substance. Otherwise please keep your ad hominem to yourself.
Notice that one of the signs of an apostate church is forbidding people to marry.
Great cherry-picking. Is Christ a liar? Did he not say:
Mat 19:10 – 12
His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with [his] wife, it is not good to marry.
But he said unto them, All [men] cannot receive this saying, save [they] to whom it is given.
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].
Nuns and Monks accept celibacy for the sake of the kingdom. The Church orders no one to not marry (except certain mentally ill people who cannot understand the marriage covenant).
You have nothing to contribute to this discussion from a Catholic perspective. Please, do not attempt to hi-jack this very important topic. I will ask, again, that you find a more appropriate forum to discuss your disagreements with the Churches teachings.
Chicken,
It looks like serious mentally ill people and homosexuals like the idea of celibacy. Why? Because they know they can’t lead a family, but can feel important being a priest or nun. Thus my experience is that many older Catholic priests and nun struggle with major anger, bitterness, and resentment issues. Marriage is a good filter to determine if someone is a qualified leader. It is that simple.
So is the Church supposed to abide by and enforce Her own Canon Law, or not, when Canon 277 clearly states that Clerics[which includes permanent Deacons] are “bound to celibacy?”
Is there another meaning than the obvious one to “bound to celibacy”?
Is there a “secret deciphering ring ” needed to decode this:
“Can. 277 §1 Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven, and are therefore bound to celibacy. Celibacy is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbour.”
What am I missing here?
The reason I ask is because I was considering discerning a call to become a perm. Deacon, but I am married and do not think I could be celibate.
Bart,
It wasn’t a rebuttal. You simply stated a false syllogism.
Major premise:
“one of the signs of an apostate church is forbidding people to marry.”
Minor premise:
“the Catholic church forbids Nuns and Priests from marrying”
Your false conclusion:
Therefore the Catholic Church is an apostate Church that contains no truth.
If you want to think that a false syllogism represents an ad hominem, then i would assert that you need a good dictionary, since you have no idea what an ad hominem is.
Your ignorance of the term and how it is applied only makes you look foolish.
It’s more likely that you’re posts are nothing more than troll bait, as evidenced in the way you believe you offered some kind of proof from scripture and feel that it contained “substance”.
::YAWN::
The beauty of being a Catholic is that one can totally excited about pages of canon law, history, and other irrelevant stuff, but at the same time have no clue on how to use Scripture effectively. It is amazing that if Catholicism is the church that Christ built, that one rarely sees a Bible quote on this blog. How come it is the Protestants that are the masters of using Scripture? Maybe this should be another clue that the Catholic church is ‘NOT the bulwark of truth’
Fact is that the celibate priesthood has proven to be poor managers of the church. Let me see the Celibate priesthood has brought us inquistions, heresy, homosexual clergy, assassinations, forged decretals, fictional hagiography, manipulation of kingdoms, anti-popes, forged papal bulls, treachery, scandal, and coverups. Maybe it is time for a change?
It is amazing that if Catholicism is the church that Christ built, that one rarely sees a Bible quote on this blog
Look, St. Bart, this is getting tiring. I own 23 different physical translations of the Bible including the oiginal Greek, Strongs concordance, Young’s Analytical Concordance, Koine Greek wordlists and many other books discussing biblical history and interpretation as well as electronic versions of the Latin translation of Scripture of St. Jerome, the 32 volumes of the Church Fathers available in English, the Summa Theologica and more, and have access to an entire university research library and three seminary libraries (one Catholic, two Protestant). I have also done detailed Greek and Latin Scripture discussions on this blog.
I routinely discuss Scripture with many folks.
If you have anything else to do than troll, please do so. Otherwise, please stick to the rules for posting. If you do not, I will ask Jimmy to remove you.
The Chicken
“How come it is the Protestants that are the masters of using Scripture?”
If you call discarding several books of divinely inspired Writ as being the work of a master, so be it.
If you call a man, Luther, who blatantly tore out and rewrote words that the Apostles and Disciples wrote, as being masterly, so be it.
If you define as being a master of Holy Writ grossly mistranslating even the Gospel message [see Christs admonishment to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to have life eternal, in St Johns Gospel] than Protestants are the Grand Poobah.
St Bart,
Why would the Protestants put their whole stock in Truth in a book thats latter half was written and its whole was compiled by Catholics?
What ever happened to discarded works like the “Book of Pilate” or the “Book of Judas”?
Who decided what books were Divinely inspired and which were not?
Why did St Iraneus [2nd cent] call all Christians, Catolica?
Hmmm.
Dan,
Just a note: the Epistle of Pilate is not in the Catholic Bible either. Yet further proof that Protestants are the master of using Scripture!
St Bart,
If you read what I wrote,I said that the book of Judas was discarded,meaning not acknowledged by the Church as Divinely inspired, as in not in the Bible, and immediately after I said it was the Catholic Church that compiled the Divinely inspired texts.
Wow!
But my 10 year old nephew knew this.
St Bart,
Here is a good place to start for you:
http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Commentary-Holy-Scripture/dp/0895557576
This commentary is very basic and very solid.
A salutary help.
Alas…looks like my original question is all but drowned amidst a sea of bantering.
Jimmy…can you help? Are you out there?
Just as another note: The Jews and Jerome never considered the Apocrypha inspired. Jerome did not want them included in the canon of Scripture. Thus the father of the Latin Vulgate did not like them either. So I guess Jerome was very Protestant in this regard.
“Let me see the Celibate priesthood has brought us inquistions, heresy, homosexual clergy, assassinations, forged decretals, fictional hagiography, manipulation of kingdoms, anti-popes, forged papal bulls, treachery, scandal, and coverups. Maybe it is time for a change?”
St. Bart, the problem in the examples you cite is not celibacy. The problem is the mixture of police power with ecclesiastical power, especially in a Europe whose leaders always have been very receptive to centralized, authoritarian governance since the days of the Roman Empire. It’s not just a Catholic problem, either.
The Anglicans don’t have a celibate priesthood, yet by making the English sovereign the head of their church, they effectively aligned themselves with the royal, governmental and academic elite…with tragic results that we see today. The Russian Orthodox don’t have a celibate priesthood, yet by insisting that Moscow is the “Third Rome” that will never be destroyed, their bishops have allowed themselves to be co-opted by the Tsarists, the Communists and, now, the Putinists. Calvinists don’t have a celibate priesthood but Cromwell ruled England and Calvin ruled Geneva like murderous totalitarians.
The problems you cite in the Catholic Church have more to do with monarchistic pretensions than celibacy. If the church had a married priesthood, I seriously doubt if much of what you cite would have been different, sadly.
BTW, St. Bart, the Anglicans also have trouble with homosexual clergy. So do Evangelical Protestants (Ted Haggard is the name most associated with the problem). While questioning mandatory celibacy is a useful exercise, using it as a broad brush to paint the Catholic Church as completely apostate is not…and this is coming from someone who seriously questions if the Church is really as faithful to God as its leaders and apologists suggest.
Joseph D’Hippolito,
To be more precise the only form of government allowed in the church is a presbyterian form of government. Episcopal and Congregational forms of church government are both wrong. Thus I refuse to go to any church that does not practice a presbyterian form of government. Secondly, Christ founded a church that creates a division between church and state. Constantine created a church that was a combination of church and state. Thus Lutherans, Anglicans, and Catholics are basically state religions.
I have lived in Russia and I agree that the Orthodox church is completely controlled by the state. Similarly the Coptic church is totally weak. Syrian Orthodox is another example of a state church. My point is that Constantine created the Catholic church and its splinter churches. Christ created autonomous independent churches in fellowship with one another. These independent churches practice a presbyterian form of government, and can derive all their doctrine from the Bible. Since the apostate churches can not derive their doctrine from the Bible, they must appeal to tradition. But let us see what Athanasius said:
“the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth” (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, part 1, 1, 3)
So, St. Bart, you wouldn’t say that the Catholic and Orthodox churches began with the Great Schism of 1054? Just curious.
“Alas…looks like my original question is all but drowned amidst a sea of bantering.
Jimmy…can you help? Are you out there?”
Hoping for a future Jimmy post on this one too.
No, the Catholic and Orthodox churches began around 325 AD. Once the Donatists were removed from the equation, the state church was founded. The state church needed to bring pagans into the fold and thus it became sacramental. Thus we go from believers baptism in the Didache 90 AD to infant baptism courtesy of Augustine 450 AD. The church went from a Neo-Platonic worldview to an Aristotelian worldview in around 1000 years. So Catholicsm is basically a mixture of paganism, bad philosophy, sacraments, forged documents, historical revisionism, and political maneuvering. Furthermore the Jews used a historical-grammatical hermeneutic and the Roman Catholics used a four senses of scripture hermeneutic. These different hermeneutics also helped destroy the fundamental meanings of Scripture. Thus there is NOTHING than can be redeemed from the Catholic church. I am working on a book that will have this all documented in full detail and show how to be steeped in history is to be Protestant. The church fathers were by an large men of little learning. Only Jerome can even be remotely considered a Theologian. And Jerome deliberately made modifications to the manuscript to support his doctrinal bias. This is all well documented, but you will never find this stuff from a Catholic Apologist.
Saint Bart,
Methinks you might be ready for the grace to come into the Catholic Church.
Why not really investigate the Church with this excellent intro to the only Church Christ established.
Its called “This is the Faith”
http://www.amazon.com/This-Faith-Complete-Explanation-Catholic/dp/0895556421
St. Bart, if the Catholic Church was “founded” in 325 A.D., as you suggest, then what differentiated its practices before 1054 from what became Orthodox practices? I believe the Orthodox also claim a direct apostolic link to Christ. That’s why I suggest 1054 as the starting date for both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Before that date, if you had a unified church, how could anyone differentiate between what might be “Catholic” and what might be “Orthodox”?
Joseph,
To answer your question in detail requires a book. But I will list some highlights. The Western church only spoke Latin by the 4th century. Latin is a legal language, while Greek is a philosophical language. The Latin allowed for a more legalistic interpretation of Scripture than lead to a more strict sacramental liturgy. The Greek lead to a more mystical understanding of Scripture. Thus there was less unity between East and West than most people realize. The dividing line has always been hermeneutics. Unless a person can understand hermeneutical issues he will forever be incapable to understand the issues that really affected the church. The historical grammatical hermeneutic is the only one practiced by Jews, Rabbi Hillel, the Antiochian school, and Evangelical Protestants. Catholics practice a hermeneutic based on Alexandria and Philo. So unless you study this in detail you will not be able to make sense of history. History is filled with poorly educated church fathers. Catholic want you to follow history. Why? Because they can not win the hermeneutical battle, so they befuddle a person with history composed of forged decretal, crusade, bad philosophy etc. The Jews were people of the book. God has always commanded His people to be people of the book. It is novel doctrine for people to be the people of church history. Thus state churches because they really have no foundation must constantly appeal to church history, which is a type of novel doctrine. TRUE churches say all truth can be derived from Scripture, just like Athanasius said. Thus Athanasius was very Protestant in that regard.
Saint Bart must know what he is talking about.
He is a canonized saint and beholds the Beatific Vision for all time.
So God must be a Protestant.
Funny, though, I never heard of a perfect being protesting against Himself though…
Reading bart’s posts will make much more sense if you have the theme to the Looney Tunes playing in the background.
Dan S,
The Greek word ekklesia, English word church, automatically implies that the person is a Christian. TThe initial condition for being a member of a church is being a Christian. Therefore the methodology of determining if a church is Christian is by always talking to the Pastor first. If the Pastor is not born again than automatically that is an apostate church. All very simple. Thus liberal Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Coptic, Mormons, JW’s are automatically liquidated. NO Evangelical believes that the church saves. Evangelicals always say that Christ saves and the Holy Spirit sanctifies and puts these believers in His church. Thus a church consists of an assembly of like minded believers. Thus Evangelicals can flat out say without hesitation that Catholic parishes, JW, liberal Protestants, Orthodox, Coptic are NOT churches!
So Dan S, Tell me how do I find the TRUE church using your methodology? If you must appeal to history than I challenge you to read history from non-Catholic sources. Why? Protestants also appeal to history to support their position.
St. Bart, you are making a mistake that a lot of Catholics who comment on this and other Catholic blogs make: You are assuming that denominational theology is the ultimate criterion for redemption or salvation. That’s what you’re doing when you say that “liberal Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Coptic…are automatically liquidated.” That’s what many Catholics on this blog do when they dismiss Protestantism in all its forms (especially evangelical) and Orthodoxy.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that church membership doesn’t save. In addition, I beleive that liberal Protestantism is effectively apostate and that Catholicism is rapidly following suit. But in making those points, you go to the other extreme by saying that members of the groups you criticize cannot be redeemed.
All who embrace Christ’s atoning, redemptive sacrifice for themselves become His adopted sons and daughters. All. Evangelical Protestants. Catholics. Orthodox. Coptics. Liberal Protestants.
Joe,
I appreciate your comment, and I should have been more precise. I will say that unless a person in born-again they will not enter heaven. Catholicism has a very convoluted doctrine regarding salvation and as such, I have only met one Catholic in 30+ years who fits that requirement. The problem is that ex-opere-operato , referring to the efficacy of the sacraments, is exactly how the pagan world viewed sacraments. Judaism, Jesus, first century Christianity, and Evangelical Protestantism absolutely deny ex-opere-operato. The problem is that few Catholics understand the implications of this heretical doctrine and thus as sheep blindly going to slaughter are worshipping at the synagogue of Satan. My claim is if a person is truly a Christian, God will pull him/her out of the Catholic church into an Evangelical church. So I will say that 99% of Catholics are liquidated and worshipping a fictional god of their own persuasion. The historic Jesus was non-sacramental, and created a church that had no Papacy, no Marian dogma, and was separate from State intervention.
It was Jesus who led me into the Catholic church, St. Bart, so you’ll have to take that up with Him!
“Catholic want you to follow history. Why? Because they can not win the hermeneutical battle”
On the contrary, many Protestants such as yourself (I used to be one) resort to these highly colored hermeneutics because they know that even a quick study of history will make short work of their claim to be part of the obviously visible, sacramental and hierarchical church founded by Christ.
It’s not too late. Repent and be united to His Body! 🙂
It’s not too late. Repent and be united to His Body!
Tim, I suggest you save that comment for the priests who have committed sexual atrocities and the bishops who enabled them. Such people have done far more damage and have dragged God’s holy name into the mire far worse than people like St. Bart.
Do you seriously believe that just because somebody is ordained a priest that he is “united to His Body”?
A holy, righteous God demands that those who hold authority in His name…regardless of what church they go to…reflect His righteousness.
Do not be deceived; God is not mocked. A lot of evangelicals will get into Heaven before such corrupt priests and bishops. (Of course, by the same token, a lot of Catholics will get into Heaven before corrupt ministers and preachers).
Joe, I have for quite a while regarded such irrelevant and gratuitous references to the priest abuse scandal as a sure indicator of intellectual laziness combined with irrational bias… a rhetorical “punt”.
It’s what anti-Catholics do when they begin to get the worst of it – on seemingly ANY topic – in an argument with a Catholic.
In this case, it wasn’t even in the heat of any real argument, but seems to function for you as some kind of bludgeon to keep Catholics in line. I was simply responding to St. Bart in kind. He is very zealous in his mistaken beliefs, and I thought I would demonstrate to him that there is no lack of zeal on the part of Catholics for *our* doctrines. If he’s going to wade in and extend blanket condemnation to Catholics, I thought it fitting to respond with a blanket call for Protestants to unite fully to Christ’s Church.
If sinful behavior among clergy is an indicator of institutional apostasy, then there simply IS no church on earth. The gates of hell have prevailed. Unless you know of such a church? Where can I find these clerics untouched by sin? Do tell.
Tim, the “irrelevant” and “gratuitous” references to which you refer are neither “intellectual laziness” or “irrational bias.” They are FACTS pointing to a greater truth that Catholics like you refuse to accept: The clerical sex-abuse crisis fundamentally destroys the Church’s moral credibility…especially since, unlike eery other denomination, the Church is run as a unitary, hierarchical bureaucrasy, which means that all authority travels from the top down.
I would like to refer you to these blogs run by faithful, non-liberal Catholics who are fed up with the situation in the Church:
http://www.podles.org/
http://throwthebumsoutin2010.blogspot.com/
http://journeytotherese.blogspot.com/
If sinful behavior among clergy is an indicator of institutional apostasy, then there simply IS no church on earth. The gates of hell have prevailed. Unless you know of such a church? Where can I find these clerics untouched by sin? Do tell.
The question isn’t a matter of sin but one of repentence. Tell me, how has the Church repented of clerical sex-abuse, besides Pope Benedict’s statement? Have bishops like Law and Mahony had their positions in the College of Cardinals revoked? As you know, Canon Law allowed the title of cardinal to be revoked, not the office of archbishop.
Again, I suggest you read 1 Samuel 2:12-36 and Ezekiel 34 to find out what God thinks about those who abuse the authority He gives them.
I am sick of this. There is no sane, measured discussion in this post any more, just ranting. So, Joseph, how do you propose to lead a Church without a hierarchy? Who gets to make the decisions, especially on evolving topics as we move into the era of scince fiction realized? Authority is not the problem, unless you wish to get rid of parents, as well. Misuse of authority is. We do not understand that very well and the simple-minded call for service and humility will not stop it. Even kn the most humble of monasteries it can happen, if only accidentally. The issues involved are vastly more complicated than you indicate and we really do not understand them very well, but that does not mean that we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. As the Church matures, more of these matters will get sorted out. The Church is perfect; its people are not. Trashing the hierarchy is not helping. I will look over Dr. Podles’s book, but I suspect his ecclesiology is simply wrong. In any case, we all know where you (and St. Bart, on a different topic) stand. Can we give it a rest? I don’t like making responses without doing my homework, and I can’t do that in any detail right now beyond the general comments. I am sure this topic will come up, again. All we are doing is inflating the comment numbers by worthless counterpunching without any really advances in the discussion.
The Chicken
Chicken,
You mentioned that misuse of authority is the reason for the scandals in the Catholic church. I could not agree more. Christ created a body called the church. The church only one head that is Christ. Each local church is one part of that body. For example a small Evangelical church in California is a fingernail, while a large church in Chicago is a finger. Originally God did not want the Jewish people to have a king. However he relented and gave them a serious of Jewish kings, who for the most part were corrupt. Similarly the problem with the Catholic church is authority. Any form of Episcopal government is wrong. God only created local autonomous churches operating with elders, deacons, and the five fold ministry. All local churches where in fellowship with other local bodies. The Episcopal form of government leads to structures like the Catholic church, which historically has been as much of a political machine as a religious machine. Thus those who don’t know God, and can’t hear His voice, will not understand my point. Further ungodliness comes by those who make a celibacy mandatory. I know many Christians who were told by God to not get married for a season, so they could focus on their spiritual life. These men and women did not date and were married later in life. Therefore it is pure legalism that claims that a priest or nun can never marry. Legalism is straight from Hell! Thus the very foundation of the Catholic Church is broken and it can NEVER be fixed. Thus Catholics have always ruled via Inquistiona, forged decretals, forged papal bulls, fictional hagiography, Crusades, Jesuit subversion,and other political maneuvering. You have written several books on the lives of the Papacy, and you of all people should know the level of corruption among the Papacy. The Catholic Church has 1700 years of corruption, but the true mark of insanity is to believe that things will get better. They never have and they never will, because Satan is head of the Catholic church as a type of Antichrist.
“Catholics have always …forged papal bulls,”
Um, huh? What does this even mean?
Joseph, I have had some time to go through and do a quick examination of the three websites/authors you suggest and although I have much to say, this is not the forum for it. Please, all, let’s take this discussion to a more appropriate forum, if one can be found. There are people, above, who have some questions that need to be discussed and the noise of these anti-hierarchy comments are drowning them out. Gentlemen, (Joseph and Bart) your points have been made. Please, move on and give others the floor.
The Chicken
Masked Chicken, I will accede to your request after I answer the questions you posed:
So, Joseph, how do you propose to lead a Church without a hierarchy? Who gets to make the decisions, especially on evolving topics as we move into the era of scince fiction realized? Authority is not the problem, unless you wish to get rid of parents, as well. Misuse of authority is.
MC, I suggest you read this. It’s a reasoned attempt to solve the problem:
http://www.crowhill.net/journeyman/Vol1No3/dulles.html
In general, the Church needs either to devise structures of internal accountability where they don’t exist, or adhere to those that already exist through Canon Law. It must involve the laity and lower clergy in such issues as parochial and diocesan operations (finances and logistics, not theology). Accountability, not power, has to be the focus.
Since you want to move on, you can e-mail me at joedhipp@yahoo.com to let me know what you think.
Dear Joseph,
You wrote:
In general, the Church needs either to devise structures of internal accountability where they don’t exist, or adhere to those that already exist through Canon Law.
No one, here, I suspect, distress with this. I’m all for bringing back the penal laws of Canon Law. The lust for power is something that is a human weakness and even with the massive oversight on the Internet, things still slip by. Accountability is a good thing, but the military will also emphasize the concept of chain of command. One needs both.
As for e-mailing, I currently have no way to do that and remain anonymous. Perhaps a more appropriate blog post somewhere will happen in the future that will allow for these discussions without side-tracking other needful discussions. Neither you nor I will change the Church by our words, but only by our deeds of prayer, fasting, and the witness of the virtues. I am content to wait for a more opportune time for a discussion. If I had a blog, you would be welcome, but I could never come up with a good name for one 🙂
In any case, I wish you peace and I imagine we will run into each other sooner rather than later on the big wide Internet.
The Chicken
Fair enough, MC. Perhaps you would like to comment on the link on this thread?
Peace to you, as well.