CathNews - a Service of Church Resources

Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. The article on celibacy is very appropriate and timely taking into consideration, the number of divoces of the young who marry in haste without having deep understanding. It is timely as the temptation around the world is vast and inviting for carnal pleasure without considering the gravity of the behaviour pattern that end in numerous troubles and consequences. Celibacy whether one is religious or otherwise shows the way to live in true happiness. Thanks for the publishing such an article to open the minds of millions rushing into trouble in haste.
   
   E.Weerapperuma - Sri Lanka

   Posted By: e.weerapperuma

2. An opinion - nothing more nor less. No foundation in evidence, either of practice or of theory, is offered to support Dr Lutz' opinion.
   
   Whatever the experience that generates this opinion for Dr Lutz, my own - both personal and professional - is quite different.
   
   First, I have encountered many who will not '...renounce the exercise of sexuality ...' yet make highly successful marital unions free of possessive fear and jealousy, but rich in generosity of spirit and love. On the other hand I have worked with many who '...renounce the exercise of sexuality...' who impose that renouncement upon their partners and live marriages based on power, control and chronic conflict.
   
   Second, it is evident that many celibates, committed to thorough training, skill development, personal and professional growth, make excellent 'guides' or marital and relationship counsellors. Many also do not.
   
   On the other hand, non-celibates frequently use their personal and professional experience - not to contaminate the counselling relationship with their own unresolved sexuality and interpersonal issues - but to enrich, enliven and bring human reality to bear upon what others exercise as a remote and purely clinical activity; leaving their self-hood parked, as it were, outside the counselling room door.
   
   But of course mine also is just opinion - one informed though by 30 years of propfessional practice and a lifetime of personal struggle with the issues of spirituality, sexuality and human relationships.
   
   Best
   
   Dr Frank Donovan

   Posted By: Dr Frank Donovan

3. This is obviously only my opinion, but I think it would be better for the Church if it allowed married men to become diocesan priests and retained celibacy for priests in monastic orders. I think this is how it has been in the Greek Orthodox church for centuries and I believe this is the most ancient tradition of ministry.

   Posted By: paul

4. Celibacy is a wonderful virtue when it is lived freely without any co-ercion. It is a gift of the Lord and should not be forced on Priests. I think that it is about time that a third option should be introduced for men called to the priesthood. At the moment we have two types of priests, those who are called to be celibate priests and those who are religious priests. I think that we should have the third type of priest, i.e. the married priest. At the moment a man has two options of either being a religious priest or a diocesan priest, The third option should be that of a married priest also. But these options are to be chosen freely as it is at moment where there is a choice of whether to be a religious or diocesan priest.

   Posted By: Simon Bugeja

5. Yet AGAIN for the benefit of Mr Bugeja, the Catholic Church has never "forced" celibacy upon any person. In the Catholic Church, celibacy has only ever been "chosen freely" by the man himself after several years of prayerful discernment.

   Posted By: Ronk

6. I never cease to be amazed and amused by articles such as this one by a Psychiatrist, no less!
   
   Yes, celibacy is awesome WHEN FREELY chosen; the problem today with our mandatory celibacy for Western clergy is that it lacks "sign value" since it is required for ordination.
   
   Having been ordained and served as a pastor for 10 years and then married for 40 years, I can tell you that a freely chosen state of life (Marriage) far exceeds any other "witness value" to the Kingdom...

   Posted By: Dr. Paul Ackerman

7. There are many forms of vocations in life, and the celibate priesthood is one.
   
   I am a young man who has entered a Seminary, and is studying towards priesthood, yes towards the celibate life.
   There is no "coercion" to compel us to accept celibacy, we are invited to follow our sense of the call from Christ and that includes prayerfully contemplating celibacy.
   
   Yes, it is a law of the Church taken from the example of Christ and the writings in Sacred Scripture, as well as 2000 years of tradition (writings of the Church Fathers etc. Which, incidentally, pre dates the Greek Orthodox's decisions regarding clerical celibacy).
   
   It is also a great gift of the individual, to give their life completely to God, the Church and the people of God.
   It would not be prudent to change such a great gift, because it was getting hard to live or to attract vocations.
   It is the Church of Christ, and the priesthood of Christ, the call of the priest is from Him, and not the man.

   Posted By: P.J.

8. More emphasis should be put on charity (instead of chastity) as the key to holiness.

   Posted By: paul

9. Paul, chastity is an essential part of charity.

   Posted By: Ronk

10. "Embracing Celibacy" denies the celebration of life. Creation of a new life through the marital act is core to the Roman Catholic beliefs. Procreation is a reason for an annulment of a marriage in the Roman Catholic Rite. To deny a priest that special position as marriage counsellor because he cannot marry is denying his manhood. And as an offshoot of Jewish life Christ was called Rabbi, but only a married man may teach the Torah.
    Temptation has been around since creation, it is not a new thing. Only man may proclaim to be celibate. Only the Almighty and he know for sure.
    
    Paul posted "...I think it would be better for the Church if it allowed married men to become diocesan priests and retained celibacy for priests in monastic orders."
    This may have merit for both of the beliefs on celibacy.
    
    Jack Princeton, NJ

    Posted By: JOHN TYLER

11. Mr Tyler, you seem to know very little about Catholic beliefs, the reasons priests are celibate, and the grounds on which a declaration of nullity of a purported marriage may be based.

    Posted By: Ronk

12. Of course there is compulsory celibacy in the Roman rite and this contradicts Jesus who chose married men as apostles. If Jesus had no problem with married apostles then why should the Roman Church? But then Jesus didn't have any hangups re human sexuality. Of course Paul reminds us that a bishop or priest should be the husband of one wife.

    Posted By: Francis

13. Francis, please name one person now or at any time in the past 2000 years whom the Catholic Church compelled to be celibate?
    
    Please provide evidence of your assertion that "Jesus had no problem with married apostles"?
    
    Please provide evidence that "Paul" [Paul who? perhaps you mean St Paul] said that a bishop or priest must have a wife?
    
    Yes that's right, the answer to all three is that you have no evidence and no answer and you're talking through your hat.

    Posted By: Ronk

14. And of course, if anyone did compel anyone to take a vow of celibacy, the vow would be null and void. A vow has no effect unless taken of one's own free will. At least that's what the Catholic Church teaches.

    Posted By: Ronk

15. Francis and others ... what evidence do you have that once Christ chose the apostles, they lived anything other than a celibate life ? Cf Luke 5:28 .. leaving everything behind.

    Posted By: Chris Saidou

16. Ronk, I didn't say that the RC Church has always compelled its priests to be celibate because for centuries bishops, priests, and popes (eg Hadrian II & Felix V) were often married. The RC Church does, now, compel its priests to be celibate.
    
    If Jesus had a problem with married apostles then he wouldn't have called married men to be apostles.....why didn't he call only unmarried men? Are you saying that Jesus did have a problem with marriage and human sexuality?
    
    I didn't say that Paul said that an episkopos (bishop) MUST have a wife, I said he states that an episkopos must be the husband of only one wife (1 Timothy 3:1ff; 1 Corinthians 9:5).
    
    Ronk, who's now talking through his Hat???? And yours must be a very big one!

    Posted By: Francis

17. Chris,
    
    What evidence do you have that they did live celibate lives? Please provide the evidence and Luke 5:28 is not evidence since it only states that Levi left his occupation.....it has nothing to do with the goodness, truth and beauty of human sexuality within marriage. In fact, I think the Church would frown on a man who left his wife. Even many celibate priests, bishops and popes had their mistresses? Was theirs a celibacy in name only??? Please explain the presence of married priests in the Catholic Church (Eastern Rite, Orthodox).

    Posted By: Francis

18. (Francis)"for centuries bishops, priests, and popes (eg Hadrian II & Felix V) were often married."
    Nonsense. Right from Apostolic times, celibacy for priests has always been very much the preferred option. Married priests were unusual and married bishops very rare. I would estimate that for the entire Church, East and West, from 30 AD to 2008 AD, about 90% of priests and 99.9% of bishops have been celibate. Hadrian II is the unique example (and even that is disputed) of a legally married pope. He married not "often" but once only. And like all married clergy of former times, he married BEFORE he took Holy Orders (i.e. before he even became a Deacon) and he and his wife lived as brother and sister after his ordination.
    There has never been a pope called "Felix V".
    
    (Francis)"The RC Church does, now, compel its priests to be celibate."
    That is a lie. And please try to avoid that pejorative term for our Church.
    
    (Francis) "If Jesus had a problem with married apostles then he wouldn't have called married men to be apostles"
    You're the one who's claiming He did, but you have no evidence.
    
    (Francis)"Are you saying that Jesus did have a problem with marriage and human sexuality?"
    Certainly not, in fact you seem to be the one with that problem.
    
    (Francis)"I didn't say that Paul said that an episkopos (bishop) MUST have a wife, I said he states that an episkopos must be the husband of only one wife"
    
    I can't see any substantive difference between the two statements. And they both are different from what St Paul said to St Timothy and nothing like what he said to the Corinthians.
    
    (Francis)"What evidence do you have that they did live celibate lives? Please provide the evidence and Luke 5:28 is not evidence since it only states that Levi left "
    Now I KNOW that you haven't studied the Gospels, which state that ALL TWELVE of the Apostles lived celibate lives. e.g. Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28, Luke 18:28.
    
    (Francis)"it has nothing to do with the goodness, truth and beauty of human sexuality within marriage. In fact, I think the Church would frown on a man who left his wife."
    Not if he left with her consent for an even better, more truthful and more beautiful life of celibacy for the Kingdom. Just as the New Testament repeatedly tells us.
    
    (Francis)"Even many celibate priests, bishops and popes had their mistresses? Was theirs a celibacy in name only???"
    Certainly. Some priests, and even some popes in the Middle Ages, were sexually immoral. What on earth does that have to do with the subject? Plenty of married men are sexually immoral.
    
    (Francis)"Please explain the presence of married priests in the Catholic Church (Eastern Rite, Orthodox)."
    What's to explain? Apart from what has been said, there were historical, geographical and cultural reasons why the Catholic Church developed different Rites in different parts of the Old World. And naturally they each have different disciplinary rules to suit their situation. For example most (all?) of the Eastern Rites do not ordain married men in Western countries.
    And please don't call the Orthodox a part of the Catholic Church. The two Churches are in schism from each other (and according to the Orthodox, Catholics are heretics) and you greatly offend both groups, especially the Orthodox.
    

    Posted By: Ronk

19. (J.Tyler)"And as an offshoot of Jewish life Christ was called Rabbi, but only a married man may teach the Torah."
    You are also confusing modern rabbinical synagogue-based Judaism withe the Temple-based priestly Judaism of Biblical times, which was destroyed by the pagan Romans in 70-135 AD. The practices of these two forms of Judaism are quite different; in fact many of the practices of modern Judaism (which is descended from the Pharisee party) were introduced in order to differentiate Judaism from the practices which Christianity had inherited from ancient Judaism. Religious celibacy was very common in Judaism in Biblical times.
    

    Posted By: Ronk

20. Ronk.....I do love your sense of humour....I know you cannot possibly keep a straight face when you write such comedy.
    
    1....How do you estiamte that 90% of priests and 99.9% of bishops have been celibate from 30AD to 2008AD. I would love to know how you arrived at such statistics. Please explain.
    
    1a....You state that celibacy was the preferred option from the beginning....not so! i note you do not say it was the only option!!!Celibacy is not a command/demand of Christ but a man-made law.
    
    1b.....I never stated that Hadrian II was married "often",,...where did you get that idea from? Pardon me for asking but is English not your first language?....I ask this so that I might be careful with framing sentences/questions. I saID THAT BISHOPS AND PRIESTS WERE 'often married" not that they were married "often".
    
    2....How do you know that Hadrian II lived with his wife as "brother and sister".....does it bother you that they might have had a sexual relationship? Felix V was chosen by cardinals to replace Eugene IV and though techically an antipope yet the history of the Council of Basle...that a council is superior to a pope....is informative. The cardinals, apparen tly, had no qualms about choosing a married man. In any case you admit some of the popes were married so I rest my case.
    
    3....Do you deny that Jesus called married men to be apostles? Does not Clement of Alexandria and St Jerome speak of their wives (except for John )? What do you make of Peter's mother in law and of Paul's assertion that the apostles take their wives with them (i Corinthians 9:5). WhaT DO YOU MAKE OF pAUL'S DEMAND THAT BISHOPS AND PRIESTS BE THE HUSBANDS OF "ONE WIFE"? (And there is a big difference between your statement and mine....it clearly shows you don't understand. By the way, the quotation was from Paul's letter to Timothy so how could my quotation be different....as you suggest.....WRONG AGAIN! Paul said to the Corinthian Church that the apostles were taking their wives (girl-friends???) with them.....please read.You seem to be saying that there is no evidence that some/many of the apostles were married!!!! Paul disagrees.
    
    4.....Your biblical quotations have nothing to do with the married state of the apostles.....are you suggesting that they left their wives?......of course they went on sporadic missions with Jesus but they returned to their families. Paul says they also took their wives and Clement says that Peter took his wife with him to Rome. I'm sure Jesus wasn't into busting up marriages.
    
    5....Your statement that most (all? the eastern Rite Churches do not ordain married men in Western countries is not true....we have eastern rite married priests where we are.
    
    6....Re the Orthodox....they are valid Catholic churches....I thought Pope John Paul II referred to them as the other lung of the body of Christ
    
    7....I should have phrased my statement re the Roman Church compelling its priests to be celibate.....it compels the Holy Spirit to choose ONLY single men!!! Probably a far worse offence!!! I wonder what would the reaction be if a married catholic man was to approach his bishop requesting ordination?
    

    Posted By: Francis

21. Francis,
    Your silly and frequently refuted (even very recently here) “arguments” do not become more convincing by putting them in block capitals with multiple exclamation marks. You merely display your desperation.
    
    Re #1, an “estimate” is not “statistics”. My estimate is an educated guess based on the facts that history makes abundantly clear that the great majority of priests in all the churches, for the great majority of the time, have been celibate, and that the remaining short time was when the churches had by far the smallest number of priests. Ditto for bishops only all bishops in all the churches…etc.
    
    Re 1a “Celibacy is not a command/demand of Christ”
    I never said it was. Christ strongly urged it of everyone who could possibly do so, but demanded it only of His Apostles and a few others.
    
    1b “Pardon me for asking but is English not your first language?”
    Am I the one constantly making grammatical and spelling errors?
    
    “ I saID THAT BISHOPS AND PRIESTS WERE 'often married" not that they were married "often".”
    Both mean the same thing
    
    2. “How do you know that Hadrian II lived with his wife as "brother and sister"”
    Because as historians report that was the universal rule for clergy who had been married.
    
    “does it bother you that they might have had a sexual relationship?”
    No, but obviously it bothers you very much indeed. Sexual obsessions can take such strange forms.
    
    “techically an antipope”
    I think the word you’re looking for is FACTUALLY he was an antipope. An antipope is not a pope. He is a man who FALSELY CLAIMS to be a pope. There are at least several such men today. I ignore both their pronouncements and their lifestyles.
    
    “a council is superior to a pope”
    Absolute nonsense. Where did you get that idea? A council’s decisions are null and void unless and until endorsed by the pope. That is dogma.
    
    “you admit some of the popes were married so I rest my case.”
    As I had never disputed that at least one pope had been married, I “admit” no part of your supposed “case” which was that “for centuries bishops, priests, and popes (eg Hadrian II & Felix V) were often married”, now shown to be thoroughly wrong.
    
    3. “Do you deny that Jesus called married men to be apostles?”
    The Gospel-writers deny it. Obviously you have a huge psychological hangup about that, so I suggest you take it up with God.
    
    “Does not Clement of Alexandria and St Jerome speak of their wives”
    Yes and in the same passages they strongly defend the fact that they lived as brother and sister after ordination. But you probably haven’t read what they actually wrote, just cut and pasted the standard ratbaggery from some anti-Catholic site.
    
    “What do you make of Peter's mother in law”
    Pretty strong evidence he didn’t have a wife, otherwise SHE would be keeping house for St Peter and would be acting as hostess to Christ and the Apostles instead of making her mother do it.
    “
    WhaT DO YOU MAKE OF pAUL'S DEMAND THAT BISHOPS AND PRIESTS BE THE HUSBANDS OF "ONE WIFE"?”
    As I pointed out, he demanded no such thing. St Paul adds in the passage you so misinterpret, a bishop “must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way.” So if you interpreted this in the same fundamentalist literalist fashion, you would say that a bishop must have children, and that if his wife and/or all but one of his children died, he must be defrocked! Obviously the meaning is that a candidate for bishop must be someone who has earned respect and proven his suitability by not having lived a dissolute lifestyle, including not HAVING HAD more than one wife. Any other interpretation leads to absurdity.
    
    “Paul said to the Corinthian Church that the apostles were taking their wives (girl-friends???)”
    Try “sister as helper” for a more accurate translation.
    Your attempts to depict St Paul as anti-celibacy are really quite hilarious. Are you really that ignorant that he himself was celibate and more strongly urged celibacy than any other Biblical author?
    
    4. “Your biblical quotations have nothing to do with the married state of the apostles.....are you suggesting that they left their wives?”
    Are you suggesting they ignored Christ’s command?
    
    “of course they went on sporadic missions with Jesus but they returned to their families.”
    A total figment of your imagination, no “of course” about it. Our Lord told them to leave their families and follow Him. He didn’t say “Let’s go on a few sporadic long weekend trips together and you can return to your families and keep your day-jobs”, for crying out loud.
    
    “ I'm sure Jesus wasn't into busting up marriages.”
    Yep, you definitely haven’t read the Gospels.
    
    5. “Your statement that most (all? the eastern Rite Churches do not ordain married men in Western countries is not true....we have eastern rite married priests where we are.”
    Perhaps you didn’t notice my question mark after “all”. A question is not a “statement”. And you didn’t say whether the EC priests were ordained in Western countries or migrated there.
    
    6. “Re the Orthodox....they are valid Catholic churches.”
    I hope for your sake no Orthodox reads what you said about them. They do NOT take kindly to being called part of the Catholic Church.
    
    7. “the Roman Church compelling its priests to be celibate.....it compels the Holy Spirit to choose ONLY single men!!!”
    Ludicrous. NOBODY can possibly compel the Holy Spirit to do anything. In fact Christ solemnly promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into “all truth” forever and prevent it from falling into error. And I did ask you not to use pejorative terms for our Church. May I ask which denomination you actually belong to?
    
    “I wonder what would the reaction be if a married catholic man was to approach his bishop requesting ordination?”
    Obviously “You’ve made your choice, now live with it.” (Unless of course it was one of those rare situations where they had no dependent children and the wife had deserted him and taken up with another and refused to reconcile, or they had mutually agreed to separate and take religious vows). You seem to be infected by the baby-boomer hippie pipe-dream that everybody can do everything everywhere with anyone all at the same time. Well they can’t. When you open any one door in life, you automatically close several others. What do you think would be the reaction if you approached an Imam requesting he make you a Moslem but insisted on continuing to eat pork and drink booze every day?
    
    

    Posted By: Ronk

22. Ronk,.
    
    Re#1....you are very confused and confusing. If celibacy was present from the very beginning how come the Council of Elvira (306) in decree #43 forbade priests from sleeping with their wives the night before Mass. How come the Council of Nicea dcreed a priest could not be married after ordination but married before ordination? Pope Siricius in 385 decreed that priests may no longer sleep with their wives (they had been until then and continued...they just ignored the pope). In 567 the Council of Tours decreed that any priest found in bed with his wife would be excommunicated for a year. In 580 Pope Pelagius II did not bother married priests as long as they did not hand over church property to wives and children. In seventh century France, Church documents show most priests were married. In the eight century St Boniface reported to the Pope that almost no bishop or priest in Germany was celibate.
    
    Look at the long list of Popes who were sons of other popes or sons of priests (Chronicle of the Popes).
    
    Your estimate is a figment of your own mind.
    
    Re #1A....show me where Christ demanded celibacy of his apostles and a few others.
    
    Note....celibacy is not demanded of bishops and priests, even if it were demanded of the apostles since bishops and priests ARE NOT apostles.
    
    How do you interpret 1 Timothy 3:1ff....or is that not in your Bible?
    
    The statement that bishops and priests were often married is not the same as they were married often. To say that they were often married has the sense of "as often as not".....to say that they were married often is to say that they had a number of marriages. Refer the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary.
    
    #2....Ridiculous becasue historians show no such thing. Of course it bothers you that they had a sexual relationship because, like Pope Gregory the Great, you possibly believe that all sexual desire is sinful in itself.
    
    A Council is superior to a pope...........how does the Church remove an apostate or heretical pope (eg Pope Honorius I, a monothelite....condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople)..... St Anthony of Florence and St Alphonsus Liguori, a Doctor of the Church, taught that a General Council could dismiss a pope. Was not Pope John XII deposed 04 December 963? And what a bastard he was!
    
    Re #3.....You do deny that Jesus called married men to be apostles......where do the Gospel writers deny it??? You admit that Clement of Alexandria and Jerome speak of the apostles' wives yet you deny the apostles had wives......strange logic!! What works of Clement and Jerome have you read?
    
    You admit that Paul admonishes bishops and priests to be the husbands of one wife and you admit that bishops and priests had children (1 Corinthians).....therefore bishops and priests in the New Testament were married because they were allowed to be married
    
    Your statement re 1 Corinthians 9:5 that the wives of the apostles were their sister helpers is a poor translation of the greek.....it's quite clear: "Have we not the right to take about a Christian sister as wife (adelphen gunaika) as do the other apostles and the Lord;s brothers and Cephas.....gunaika comes from the greek = wife.
    
    Re #4.....Christ gave no such command for, as you say in response to #1a "I never said it (celibacy) was (a command of Christ).....now you are saying it was!! Please make up your mind.
    
    
    You admit that Jesus was into busting up marriages......a strange Jesus partticularly as the Church forbids it!!!
    
    Even if the apostles were celibate (which most were not.....Jerome seems to complain that John was the only unmarried apostle)) the bishops and priests in 1 Corinthians were not.
    
    
    Re#6....What rot! The Orthodox have the same creeds which mentions "Catholic".....the word Catholic is actually Greek (two Greek words). You know nothing about the Orthodox. In fact, it's the Orthodox who hold that they are the true Catholics.
    
    
    Re #7....The title Roman Catholic Church is not a pejorative term as even the Catholic Enquiry Centre uses it. Roman Catholic differentiates you lot from Eastern Catholic and Orthodox.

    Posted By: Francis

23. It's a funny picture to illustrate the article, is it not?

    Posted By: Vince Carroll MSC

24. F: “If celibacy was present from the very beginning how come the councils decreed….etc.”
    I realise you have a knack of making simple words and concepts seem difficult, but surely you can see that “celibacy was present” is not the same as “celibacy was universal”? In any case Elvira was only a regional council (equivalent to modern national/regional bishops’ conferences) with no universal authority, not an Ecumenical Council.
    
    F: “In the eight century St Boniface reported to the Pope that almost no bishop or priest in Germany was celibate.”
    i.e. they were either Arian heretic priests, or the few unsuccessful Catholic missionaries who had gone to Germany before Boniface and had ended up “going native”. St Boniface soon fixed up the mess and properly evangelised the Germans. As you yourself said, these disobedient priests “just ignored the pope”. Just like many people today ignore various laws, both Church and secular. That doesn’t mean the laws don’t exist!
    
    F: “Your estimate is a figment of your own mind.”
    No, I gave you the workings for it. Pray tell what is YOUR estimate?
    
    F: “celibacy is not demanded of bishops and priests, even if it were demanded of the apostles since bishops and priests ARE NOT apostles.”
    Why do you keep inventing and then attacking straw-man arguments which I have NOT made? I never said Christ directly DEMANDED celibacy of bishops and priests.
    
    F: “How do you interpret 1 Timothy 3:1”
    As the Church advises and as all intelligent people do, by looking at it in CONTEXT. NOT, as those who absurdly try to use the Church’s own Scriptures to argue against the Church invariably do, by totally ignoring the rest of the Bible, the rest of the book and the passage, or even, as you have done in this case, even the rest of the same sentence! St Paul strongly insists on his own celibacy and vehemently recommends it to others, especially priests. He even founded orders of celibate women.
    
    F: “The statement that bishops and priests were often married is not the same as they were married often.”
    The Dictionaries and Fowler’s Usage all agree that the adverb “often” may be placed before or after the verb it qualifies without any difference in meaning.
    
    F: “it bothers you that they had a sexual relationship”
    I have absolutely no interest in whether any married couple has a sexual relationship. You’re the one who is expending a huge amount of energy trying to “prove” that they did. Obviously it has great personal importance to you.
    
    F:“ like Pope Gregory the Great, you possibly believe that all sexual desire is sinful in itself.”
    Like St Gregory, I believe that LUST (the self-centred desire to ABUSE oneself or another person for one’s sexual pleasure) is sinful in itself. The chaste desire for the marital act is not lust.
    
    F: “A Council is superior to a pope”
    According to you, not according to the Church’s clear doctrine.
    
    F: “how does the Church remove an apostate or heretical pope”
    The Holy Spirit has ensured that it has never been faced with this question. Some think that it is theoretically possible for a pope to privately hold heretical views although obviously no pope has or ever could publicly teach heresy. But others agree with Saint Alphonsus Ligouri (contrary to your absurd misrepresentation of him): “We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic”.
    
    F: “Pope Honorius I, a monothelite....condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople”
    He was a coward and/or incompetent in failing in his duty to clearly, forcefully, and effectively combat the Monothelite heresy. But he was NOT a Monothelite, not even privately. No Council can condemn a pope, and the motion accusing him of heresy has never been endorsed by any pope, so it is null and void.
    The charism of infallibility is a very negative protection by the Holy Spirit. He does NOT ensure that a pope will always teach in the best possible words in the best possible way, or even that a pope will teach anything at all when the situation is crying out for him to do so. ONLY that he will never teach error.
    
    F:“Was not Pope John XII deposed 04 December 963? And what a b…d he was!”
    Many rulers, religious and secular, good and bad, have been deposed. Whether the deposers had a legitimate right to do so is a totally different question. Most did not.
    
    

    Posted By: Ronk

25. F: “Clement of Alexandria and Jerome speak of the apostles' wives”
    Perhaps you are confusing this Clement (who was a third-century bishop in whose theological writings are some errors or at least dubious assertions) with Saint Clement (the fourth Pope, Clement I) who was a close collaborator with the Apostles and was consecrated by Sts Peter & Paul, and who actually would have known. You are on slightly firmer ground with St Jerome, who was a Saint and a Doctor of the Church, albeit living in the fifth century he was even further removed from the actual situation. However saints, and even Doctors of the Church, are not infallible, and their opinions certainly do not over-rule the Gospels which are infallibly declared to be free of any error and to be a true historic record of what Our Lord really said and did. Moreover, both Clements and Jerome were themselves celibate and St Jerome, a dedicated ascetic, was, even more so than St Paul, a vehemently polemic proponent of celibacy the superiority of celibacy to marriage. He even insisted that Christians must believe that St Joseph was a perpetual virgin (not a widower as some believe). I can’t help laughing at your choice of the unwilling soldiers you have conscripted for your one-man campaign against celibacy, though no doubt they themselves would be more horrified than amused by your taking their names in vain.
    
    F: “bishops and priests in the New Testament were married because they were allowed to be married”
    Straw-man again. I never claimed that priestly celibacy has always and everywhere been a universal requirement. They were ALLOWED to be married, they were not COMPELLED to be married.
    
    F: “it's quite clear: "Have we not the right to take about a Christian sister as wife”
    Great, now you’re accusing the Apostles of incest. The harder you try to dig yourself out of the hole you’ve put yourself in, the deeper you sink.
    
    F: “You admit that Jesus was into busting up marriages......a strange Jesus partticularly as the Church forbids it!!!”
    Nonsense. The Church follows Jesus’ teaching and permits, even encourages, married couples to separate for good and just reasons, such as for a higher calling than marriage.
    
    F: “What rot! The Orthodox have the same creeds which mentions "Catholic"”
    So do most of the protestants, although some of them delete “Catholic” and insert “Christian” or the name of their denomination. Are you going to tell me they are also an integral part of the Catholic Church?
    
    F: “You know nothing about the Orthodox. In fact, it's the Orthodox who hold that they are the true Catholics.”
    For someone who seems to imply that you ARE Eastern Orthodox, you seem to know very little about them. Of course the Orthodox (big O) Churches believe that they themselves comprise the true catholic (small c) Church (and that the Catholics are heretics), just as Catholics believe that they are the true orthodox (small o) Church, (and that the Eastern Orthodox are schismatics, though they baulk at calling them heretics). NEITHER believes that the Eastern Orthodox Churches are integral parts of the Catholic Church as you falsely claimed, and the EOCs would be horrified and disgusted by your assertion.
    
    F: “The title Roman Catholic Church is not a pejorative term as even the Catholic Enquiry Centre uses it.”
    Nonsense. The term “Roman Catholic” originated as an insult created by Anglicans to express their claim that THEY were the true Catholic Church and that Catholics were not only at least heretics if not apostates or pagans, but also traitors to their country . They thus coined the term "Roman Catholic" to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves and to create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).
    The noun "Romanist" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), appeared in England about 1525. The adjective "Romish" (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), appeared around 1535. "Roman Catholic" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), was coined around 1605. The verb "to Romanize" (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), appeared around 1610. By 1675 the noun "Romanism" (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and about 1825, the noun "Roman Catholicism," a synonym for the earlier "Romanism."
    A similar complex of insults arose around "pope." About 1525 the Anglicans coined the term "papist" and later "papism" and the adjective "popish." Next came "popery" (1535), then "papistry" (1550), with its later derivatives, "papistical" and "papistic." (Source: Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1995 ed.)
    This complex of insults shows the depths of animosity English Protestants had toward the Church. No other religious body (perhaps no other group at all, even national or racial) has such a complex of insults against it woven into the English language as does the Catholic Church. Even today many Protestants who have no idea what the origin of the term is cannot bring themselves to say "Catholic" without qualifying it or replacing it with an insult.
    Even some Catholic agencies which deal primarily with “High Church” Anglicans who consider themselves “Catholic”, have been forced to use the term “Roman Catholic” when addressing them. You will find even the CEC uses “Catholic” unqualified in its actual course materials. [Some Catholics in the USA have resorted to calling themselves “Roman Catholic” to assert their loyalty to the Pope as distinct from other supposed “Catholics” {“cafeteria Catholics”} who constantly denounce and dissent from Catholic doctrines and directives.] Such terms are never used in Church documents addressed to Catholics rather than Anglicans, and are unknown in non-English-speaking countries.
    
    F: “Roman Catholic differentiates you lot from Eastern Catholic and Orthodox.”
    “You lot”? At least now you have finally admitted you are not a Catholic though you refused to answer before. The Catholic Enquiry Centre would be equally delighted whether one of its enquirers converts to the Latin (so-called “Roman”) Rite or to any of the other 22 (so-called “Eastern”) Rites of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. All are in full communion with and under the governance of the Pope, and very very few of us belong to the Diocese of Rome.
    

    Posted By: Ronk

26. Ronk,
    
    Your state of confusion is laid bare!
    
    1....You state that "Right from Apostolic times celibacy for priests (what about for bishops??) was very much the preferred option". Again you wrote "Christ demanded celibacy of his Apostles"
    
    Now you write "surely you can see that 'celibacy was present' is not the same as 'celibacy was universal'.....of course I can see that but apparently you cannot since you are arguing that the apostles, bishops and priests mentioned in the NT were not married" whereas they were more often than not. You now seem to admit that the episcopoi and presbuteroi were married more often than not wheras, elsewhere, you have worked out that most were not. Strange.
    
    You say the Apostles were not married: the Gospel writers, Paul, Clement of Alexandria and Jerome deny it!
    
    Hippolytus of Rome condemns Pope Callistus for ordaining men who have been married more than once. Read Hippolytus.
    
    Did you give me the workings for how you estimated that most bishops and priests from the beginning were celibate or was that the workings of your own mind that you gave us? You still haven't declared your sources....until you do a big F for fail.
    
    You might not have said that Christ DIRECTLY demanded celibacy.....but you said that most bishops and priests were celibate because that was the preferred option. Did Christ INDIRECTLY demand celibacy of bishops and priests. If so where?
    
    Re 1 Timothy 3:1.....I meant to ackowledge the quote as 3:1-7......it proves episkopoi (from which we get the word "bishop" were married in the churches that Paul was associated with. You're the one misrepresenting Sacred Scripture (Read the Catechism on exegesis of Sacred Scripture!)
    
    Your comment re "often" shows you've completely missed the point.
    
    Your comment that the Holy Spirit has assured that the Church has never been faced with an heretical or apostate pope is nonsense. The Third Council of Constantinople in 680 condemned Pope Honorius for the heresy of Montheletism that he espoused and accused him of being an agent of Satan (Read the Council!) Pope Marcellinus (296-304) committed apostasy by handing over the Church's sacred books and offering incense to the pagan gods in order to save his skin!! St Alphonsus Liguori, whilst not believing that it could happen, did admit that, should it happen a Council could depose such a pope. There have been many examples where a Council has demanded certain actions of the Bishop of Rome. READ THE THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE and you will see that a Council has condemned a pope despite your ridiculous assertion that no Council can condemn a pope. You seem to gloss of that disaster known as Pope John XII!
    
    Re the Orthodox.....did not Pope John Paul II refer to them as the other lung of the Body of Christ? Your assertion is that they would be offended at being referred to as "Catholic".....what a stupid statement! You know nothing about the Orthodox. Your hatred for non-Catholics is consuming you!
    What's the difference between the Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Orthodoxy. Read #838 of the Catechism (you'll probably wet your pants!)
    
    Your ramblings re "Roman Catholic" are absurd. How about the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission? Was your denomination forced by those naughty Anglicans to use the term? How weak you must be. Read #1203 of the Catechism and you will see that the title "Roman" is a valid way of speaking about the Latin Rite. The term Roman is, therefore, used in Catholic documents addressed to Catholics. You get another F for fail.
    
    
    
    Your comment re incest re 1 Cor 9:5 is cheap and dirty!! It shows you're not coping. Paul uses two greek words next to one another "adelphen" = "sister" and "gunaika" = "wife". and the Greek literally means "a sister as a wife". Paul frequently called Christian women "sister" How would you translate Paul's Greek? The Jerusalem Bible (Catholic!!) translates it thus:5 And every right to be accompanied by a Christian wife, like the other apostles, like the brothers of the Lord, and like Cephas? Paul here admits that the other apostles take their wives with them!!
    
    

    Posted By: Francis

27. F:"you are arguing that the apostles, bishops and priests mentioned in the NT were not married"
    Straw-man. I never claimed that all of the bishops and priests mentioned in the NT were not married.
    
    F:"You now seem to admit that the episcopoi and presbuteroi were married more often than not"
    Another straw-man. I said nothing to that effect. Why can't you just discuss what I actually said instead of making stuff up? It's you who is confused, or else deliberately sowing confusion to hide the fact that your argument that celibacy wasn't preferred doesn't stand up to the evidence.
    
    F:"Hippolytus of Rome condemns Pope Callistus for ordaining men who have been married more than once."
    And this is relevant because....??
    
    Where have I shown the slightest "hatred for non-Catholics"?
    
    F:"Your assertion is that they would be offended at being referred to as "Catholic".....what a stupid statement! You know nothing about the Orthodox."
    Why don't you try telling a practising Orthodox that he's a Catholic, and report back to us what he replied (though it probably won't be printable).
    
    F:"Read #838 of the Catechism"
    It says non-Catholic Christians have an imperfect communion with the Catholic Church. Just as I said.
    
    F:"Read #1203 of the Catechism and you will see that the title "Roman" is a valid way of speaking about the Latin Rite."
    Now read it properly. It says the Roman rite is ONE of the forms of the Latin Rite.
    
    F:"The term Roman is, therefore, used in Catholic documents addressed to Catholics."
    And yet another straw-man. I never disputed this fact.
    
    The rest of your comment is simply repetition of points I have already refuted.
    
    

    Posted By: Ronk

28. Pope Marcellinus was a saint and most likely a martyr, under Diocletian the most vigorous persecutor of all Roman emperors. The false accusation that he apostasised was invented by a Donatist heretic in Africa more than a century later in order to “prove” that the Donatist heretics, not the Catholics, were the true church, and was immediately vigorously refuted by St Augustine. There is no mention of the alleged apostasy among his contemporaries; if it was true it would surely have caused a sensation and widespread discussion and condemnation. The Donatists made the same false accusation against the following three popes, why didn’t you mention them?
    
    The Jerusalem Bible in fact refers in 1 Cor 9:4 to “a Christian woman”; yet another dishonest misrepresentation by you.
    
    And in 1 Tim 3:2 the JB says that a bishop “must not have been married more than once”. It does NOT follow that therefore he must have been married once; AND be still married; AND be sexually active. St Paul adds that a bishop “must not be a heavy drinker”. Do you therefore similarly conclude that all bishops must be moderate drinkers? If the Church were to institute a rule that it would only consecrate bishops who had pledged to abstain from alcohol, would you accuse it of acting contrary to Scripture?
    
    I am always pleased to debate and discuss issues with any Catholic, non-Catholic or non-Christian who is willing to join me in an honest and open-minded search for the truth. But you are not even being honest, let alone open minded. Not only about your own beliefs, but you have blatantly misrepresented my words and the words of the Jerusalem Bible and the Catechism. You seem more interested in generating heat than light.
    

    Posted By: Ronk

29. Ronk,
    
    In your reply you left out reference to the Apostles.....were they married or not?
    
    Were the episkopoi and presbuteroi of Paul's letter to Timothy, and his letter to Titus married or not?
    
    Pope Callistus ordained men who had been married more than once (Read Hippolytus' letter). Why would a Pope ordain married men, and why ordain men who had been married more than once (contra Paul's order) if celibacy was the preferred option from the beginning. Was Callistus wrong?
    
    The Orthdox claim to be the true Catholics.....I am friends of an Orthodox priest!! Why don't you ask an Orthodox priest if they are Catholic?
    
    
    Read the rest of Catechism #838.....it acknowledges the Catholic Orders, Sacraments etc of the Orthodox even if you don't.
    
    Re "Roman"....you were the one who reacted negatively calling it a pejorative term. The Catechism acknowledges the validity of this term.
    
    Pope Marcellinus did commit apostasy and your protestations otherwise do not change history. Pope Honorius was condemned by one of his successors for heresy.
    
    Re 1 Corinthians 9:4....which version of the Jerusaelme Bible do you have. I admit I don't have one but the Jerusalem Bible on Catholic Online (www.catholic. org) definitely reads "Christian wife". How would you tranlate the Greek (adelphen = sister + gunaika = wife"?). Your defamatory statement that I was deliberately dishonestly misleading is the sign of a desperate "man"??
    
    
    Re 1 Timothy 3:2.....you obviously cannot grasp the exegetical method. You do have a problem with "sexual activity" since you seem to be horrified that these early "episkopoi and presbuteroi ...bishops and priests....might have been sexually active. Does the sexual love between a Christian husband and wife diminish their holiness? I don't know what your hangups are but according to early Church councils priests were sleeping with their wives....I'd be very surprised if there was not some sexual activity. Is that so wrong?
    
    Who is it who has misrepresented sacred Scripture and the Catechism?

    Posted By: Francis

30. I have just enough patience left for one more reply to your repetitions and misrepresentations.
    
    F: “you left out reference to the Apostles.....were they married or not?”
    As I have repeated numerous times, they were not. (And just to help you along with your argument as you are doing such a poor job of arguing your case: it is true that this is not a de fide defined doctrine; however it is rash indeed of you to defy the evidence of Scripture and Tradition.)
    
    F: “Were the episkopoi and presbuteroi of Paul's letter to Timothy, and his letter to Titus married or not?”
    I don’t know, most likely most were not. I appreciate that for some reason it is vitally personally important to you to know this for certain and/or to "prove" that they were all married, but you’ll probably never find out in this life.
    
    F: “Pope Callistus ordained men who had been married more than once (Read Hippolytus' letter). Why would a Pope ordain married men, and why ordain men who had been married more than once (contra Paul's order) if celibacy was the preferred option from the beginning. Was Callistus wrong?”
    You seem to be having a great deal of trouble understanding the simple word “preferred”. It is not a synonym for “universal and eternal” and its antonym is not “wrong” but “unpreferred”.
    And I hate to be the one to break this news to you, but some popes at times have done disciplinary things which were contrary to scripture, and even sinful!
    
    F “The Orthdox claim to be the true Catholics”
    Just as I said. Btw sorry to pick up your typos again, but if you’re going to continually rant at me that I “know nothing about the Orthodox”, you should at least realise that there are 3 Os in it.
    
    F: “I am friends of an Orthodox priest!!”
    You won’t be once he reads what you wrote about him.
    
    F: “Why don't you ask an Orthodox priest if they are Catholic?”
    “They”? The Orthodox don’t pretend to have female “priests”. As I said, go ask your friend if he thinks his church is an integral part of the Catholic Church, and stand back for the reply.
    
    F: “Read the rest of Catechism #838.....it acknowledges the Catholic Orders, Sacraments etc of the Orthodox even if you don't.”
    Yet another false representation. I have constantly held the truth taught by the Church, that the Holy Orders and other Sacraments of the Orthodox churches are valid.
    
    F: “Re "Roman"....you were the one who reacted negatively calling it a pejorative term. The Catechism acknowledges the validity of this term.”
    More falsehood. I called your abusive “Roman Catholicism” a pejorative term as it is, and of course the Catechism of all things does not acknowledge any validity for it. Naturally the Church often uses the word “Roman” to refer to the city and diocese of Rome.
    
    F: “Pope Marcellinus did commit apostasy and your protestations otherwise do not change history.”
    History says your allegation is false. Strange how in an argument which began as an attack on the Church’s supposed “exclusivism”, “rigidity” and “legalism”, you are now running with a myth invented by the most exclusive rigid legalist exclusivists of all, the Donatists, who taught that grievous sins cannot be forgiven and that an unworthy man cannot confect the Eucharist or validly administer any sacrament.
    
    F: “Pope Honorius was condemned by one of his successors for heresy.”
    Really? Which one?
    
    F: “the Jerusalem Bible on Catholic Online (www.catholic. org) definitely reads "Christian wife".”
    That is the NJB, not the JB.
    
    F: “How would you tranlate the Greek (adelphen = sister + gunaika = wife"?).”
    Obviously it can NOT be taken literally or it would lead to the absurdity that St Paul was demanding the right to incest and declaring that all the other Apostles do the same, as I said. Read the verse in CONTEXT as I have repeatedly told you. St Paul CANNOT have been arguing for the right to marry. Every man has that as a natural right. He is defending the right for himself and St Barnabas to be supported by the Church.
    
    F: “Your defamatory statement that I was deliberately dishonestly misleading is the sign of a desperate "man"??”
    Whether it is defamatory I leave to readers to judge. Plainly many of your comments here are dishonest and misleading. To what extent this is deliberate or due to other factors such as perhaps a blind hatred of Catholicism clouding your rational faculties, I do not know.
    
    F: “Re 1 Timothy 3:2.....you obviously cannot grasp the exegetical method.”
    YOUR maverick “method” is certainly impossible to rationally grasp.
    
    F: “You do have a problem with "sexual activity" since you seem to be horrified that these early "episkopoi and presbuteroi ...bishops and priests....might have been sexually active.”
    What an absurd misrepresentation. I have repeatedly stated that some of them not only might have been, but in fact actually were, sexually active. I have certainly never expressed anything remotely resembling “horror” at the fact.
    
    F “Does the sexual love between a Christian husband and wife diminish their holiness?”
    Of course not, it increases it, provided they are chaste.
    
    F: “I don't know what your hangups are but according to early Church councils priests were sleeping with their wives....I'd be very surprised if there was not some sexual activity. Is that so wrong?”
    You seem to be falsely implying that I have a “hangup” about this or think that it’s “wrong”. As I said, I have no interest whether a married couple (not involving myself) have sexual activity or not.
    
    But apparently you have a MASSIVE hangup about celibacy, which it seems you can only relieve by sticking your head in the sand and pretending that everyone who has ever been celibate has in fact been secretly married or sneaking “a little bit on the side”. Why is the existence of celibacy and the fact that it has always been the overall preferred option for priests, such a personal affront to you?
    
    F: “Who is it who has misrepresented sacred Scripture and the Catechism?”
    As I said I’ll leave that to the readers to judge.
    

    Posted By: Ronk

• » Advertise in CathNews

Email to Friend Please fill out the following details (fields marked with a * are mandatory):
Send To Email Address*:
Send To Name *:
Sent By Email Address*:
Sent By Name *:
Text to include in email:
Captcha validation:	please enter the code above:

^ Page Top

Comment on this article

More from this section

1. Don't pressure pope over Pius: Vatican

   Vatican spokesman Fr Federico Lombardi has issued a call to both Catholics and Jews to stop pressuring Pope Benedict over the sainthood prospects of the late Pope Pius XII.

2. Go in peace: New mass endings approved

   The Holy See has approved three alternatives to "Ita missa est", the priest's final words at Mass, Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments head, Cardinal Francis Arinze, has announced.

3. Follow Christ, not Adam: Pope

   "The radical humility of Christ" contrasted with the "pretension of Adam" and the "pride of the builders of the Tower of Babel" that ended in "self-destruction", Pope Benedict said on Wednesday.

4. Few WYD overstayers and asylum seekers

   Only 31 World Youth Day pilgrims have overstayed their visas, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship has reported, while another 186 people have applied for protection visas.

5. Vinnies stays optimistic

   Vinnies head Dr John Falzon says the Society is staying optimistic despite being swamped with calls for assistance in the wake of the economic crisis.