In the OT, God instructs the Jews “no pork. No shellfish.” So can I assume you follow that command of God, since you seem to follow other commands he gave in the OT?
And in the NT, of course, God commands His followers “when you pray, pray in secret”.
And I also recall a verse in the NT where Jesus instructs His followers that they can’t love Him if they don’t hate their parents. Hmm…
True, the Old Testament contains dietary laws. The New Testament, in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 10, says that God made all foods clean. In the Gospel of Luke, chapter 14, Jesus said to hate your father and mother. Some writers say that this is hyperbole, an extreme statement to make a point.
If you want answers to questions about the parts of the Bible that are difficult to understand, you might take a Bible course and ask an expert.
If you are looking for excuses to dismiss the Bible and ignore, say, the Ten Commandments, the Bible is big enough that you could spend many years raising objections. If you see the Bible as inspired by God, then the thing to do is take it seriously and look for His will. If you don’t seek to learn and follow God’s commandments, then, as Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote in The Brothers Karamazov, without God, everything is permitted. Some writers claim that hell is the absence of God. Maybe so. No Ten Commandments? Nothing forbidden? It will be hell.
Thank you for reminding me about that passage in the New Testament regarding food.
As far as understanding the Bible, I have read a variety of information about the Bible and religion. For example, some years ago I recall reading something by Elaine Pagels which was interesting and I thought insightful. And the scholar Bart Ehrman has written some very good stuff, which again, I read years ago.
I think it was Ehrman who pointed out that the books of the bible were of course copied by scribes who sometimes thought they could do better than the original author. And the philosopher Kart Popper had some interesting ideas.
I’ve also found that behavioral scientists have provided a lot of very interesting information about religion, the Bible, Christianity, and so on.
Who are some of the scholars whose work you like?
Of course, we must remember that all of the books of th bible were after all written by human beings who thought they were hearing the voice of God–and of course, as we see all the time, a person’s understanding of God is very much connected to the person’s psychology, cultural mileau. etc. Not even all believers of a particular denomination hold the same beliefs.
Though her intentions were selfless, it was wrong.
The Golden Rule is a good start, but has its flaws. Someone with an ill-formed conscience could justify evil towards another simply because it is what they would want done to them.
Neither the founder of Lutheranism nor the founder of Islam are God. The founder of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches is God (namely Jesus Christ).
The same could be argued for those who refuse to acknowledge God. They do so to justify their own beliefs and behaviors. I would love to live a life where I could sleep around and take whatever I wanted! I could simply tell myself there is no God and do as I want (libertinism). But, I do believe in God and in objective morality.
There are consequences to living a life of debauchery. There is a reason that individuals who live a live of envy and greed are more likely to die violent deaths. The Mob was not killing innocent human beings. Usually it was other criminals who would interfere with their immoral activities or who could not pay debts owed.
Some of these mob members attended Church on Sundays and were often the best-dressed at Church, but they were not living Christian lives. And God will hold them accountable on Judgement day.
First, if you do not believe in objective morality, then how can you say that any organization has done wrong? Or is it just Alinsky Rule #4?
Second, the church is not just an organization. As we heard in the Second Reading this past Sunday (1 Corinthians 12:12-30), the church is the mystical body of Christ. So when I sin, I contribute to the sin of the church. When I serve others, for Christ’s sake (and I’m not swearing when I say this), I am contributing to the good that the church does and may Christ’s name be glorified, for it is He working in me through grace. This is what we mean by living a holy lives, cooperating with God’s grace.
God gives us free will, to choose His ways or to choose our own ways.
The difference between secular humanists and Christians is that when a Godless philanthropist does good, he glorifies himself, whereas the Christian who does good glorifies God. The flip-side of this is that when the Christian does bad (does not choose God’s ways), the atheist tends to blame Christianity; or God (whom he claims does not exist).
This is true of atheists as well. Some believe we matter, even though they believe we are accidents, while others believe human beings really don’t matter (nihilism).
We look to the Early Church Fathers, the successors of the Apostles and what they believes. And yes, they did not all agree on everything, this is true. But the further you get from the Ancient Christian Church (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church) the less modern Christians believe as the Apostles believed. It is why The United Methodists now believe in so-called sąme-sęx Marriage and artificial forms of birth control within Christian Marriage, among other things. It is why Baptists believe Holy Communion is merely symbolic and do not believe in regenerative Baptism. They reject the teachings of the historical Christian Church, founded by Christ and passed on through the Apostles and their successors.
You mentioned that there are disagreements even among Christians with the same denominations. Catholics are not a denomination. We do have different rites (or practices and customs within the Church), but we believe the same things dogmatically and most things doctrinally. Where we differ might be on how we liturgically Worship and on which liturgical calendars we follow, but these are more to do with customs and traditions and not to do with matters of morality and Faith.
So going back to the original topic. Priests taking a vow of celibacy is a discipline in the Church, which means this is something that could change in the future, but I would caution the Church on doing so without proper discernment. We do have some Married Catholic Priests (especially in the Eastern Rites). Sometimes there are dispensations granted to Married Protectant Pastors who become Catholic (from the more mainline Protestant traditions). It would be less likely that a non-Denominational or Baptist Pastor would be granted a dispensation, but it is probably on a case-by-case basis.
Most formerly Protestant Pastors that I know do not want to become Married Priests and remain a lay-person or some become Deacons, but do not seek to be ordained Priests. We have a gentleman who sits in front of us every Sunday who was a Protestant Pastor prior to becoming Catholic. His Wife and son do not attend Church with him, which is quite sad. I think there is a bit of resentment there on the part of the Wife. She liked being a Pastor’s Wife. Dr. Taylor Marshall (the rad-trad Dad with a web-cam) was formerly an Anglican Priest. He probably could have been granted a dispensation to become a Catholic Priest, but having a large family and pastoring a Church is a lot work.
I work with a Pastor’s Wife and I hear how hard it can be to be a father to a church family and sending two daughters to med-school (which is not cheap). Pastor Tom works a full-time job in addition to serving the church (preparing his Sunday Sermon, visiting people in the hospital, counseling couples, performing Marriages and funerals, etc.)
This is why St. Paul encourages celibacy as a gift from God in some of the letters he wrote to the church in Corinth. But, he also wrote that if one is unable, because of a lack of self-discipline, then it is better for him to Marry than to commit sin. The Early Church Fathers also addressed this as well. In the Eastern Rites, you cannot become a Bishop if you are a Married Priest. And only if you are Married prior to your ordination can you be Married and a Priest. And they cannot remarry if their Wife dies after they are ordained. Again, this comes back to not being divided between serving the church family and serving your biological family (sometimes referred to as the domestic church).
In Christianity, we are all called to be priests (referred to as the common or royal priesthood), but some God calls to become validly ordained Priests (successors to the Apostles). Small “P” and big “P”.
Hope this helps : )
My favorite scholar is Father Richard Simon, who wrote as “Reverend Know-It-All,” borrowing this title from the Bullwinkle character Mister Know-It-All. He wrote in a breezy, humorous style, but he used to teach Latin and Greek to seminarians (teaching dead languages to comatose seminarians, as he put it). However, he knows Catholicism and he knows the Bible in its original languages, not to mention ancient cultures. A lot of his “Reverend Know-It-All” columns (originally from his parish bulletin, as I understand it) are archived online at http://reverendknow-it-all.blogspot.com/.
Another favorite of mine is Father Robert D. Smith (deceased, I believe). His book The Other Side of Christ (Magnificat Press, 1987) is intelligent and, as far as I can tell, accurate. As the title says, it is only about one side of Christ: the strict side, Christ who said not only must we not kill, but everyone who grows angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and who said that in the beginning, divorce was not accepted—elaborating stricter implications of the commandments. Father Smith felt that this side of Christ has been neglected in portrayals of Jesus that emphasize his kindness, gentleness and mercy—all correct but not the whole story.
As a writer and editor, I’m suspicious when someone says that things “of course” happened or says that people undoubtedly, probably, most likely, etc., did, felt, said or thought certain things. If someone says that transcriptions of the Bible “of course” were embellished, the words “of course” say that it’s a fact and that we all know it. Because the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, the person who says that Bible transcriptions were embellished had that information available. The Wikipedia article on the Dead Sea Scrolls (yeah, it’s Wikipedia, but in a quick search I didn’t find another succinct description) says, “The discovery demonstrated the unusual accuracy of transmission over a thousand-year period.” The Old Testament Scriptures on the scrolls were virtually identical to the Scriptures of a thousand years later. So they were copied without embellishment. But that’s the Old Testament. “Of course” the New Testament was not handed on accurately, this person says? It’s a fact and we all know it? I would need a lot of proof to accept that.
I always find it’s very useful, and interesting, to try to investigate ideas from as many sides as possible.
Thus, my question: have you read material from any individuals (preferably, folks with some special standing, e.g. education) SKEPTICAL of Christianity, bible, etc?
The 10 Cs are not a bad starting place for ideas about good behavior, but I think we can all think of plenty of situations in which ideas like “no stealing”, “no killing”, etc, would be counterproductive.
And then, of course, there is the question of how to interpret them, e.g. what is OK and not OK re honoring God. All businesses closed on Sunday? etc.
Back to the topic at hand, It is probably similar to someone knowing if they are with the right person and weather or not they should Marry said individual (to have and to hold until death do them part). I had a friend once invite me out to dinner and ask me, “How do I know if she is the one?” I really did not know how to answer this question. I think I gave him some cliché line, “If you know, you know,” which is bad advice, because feelings can lead one astray.
They did end up getting Married, but she was tragically killed in a car accident (after an elderly man ran a stop-sign and struck her car, causing it to spin into a pole). It was very sad.
In the Catholic Church we have what is called Pre-Cana, where engaged couples meet with other Married couples and/or a Priest to discern if indeed the engaged couple(s) should be getting Married. I would say there were about half of the couples sitting at our table that should not have been getting Married and the other half were great. The half of the couples at our table that I thought should be getting Married are still happily Married to this day. The other couples, I have not seen since Pre-Cana to know if they even are still Married. The men that were sitting their with their arms folded thinking it was nonsense that they should even have to do this Pre-Cana thing, more than likely are not willing to sacrifice for their Marriage when things get tough.
I have a feeling it is similar for the call to the Priesthood. Seminarians have a period where they are discerning if they are truly being called by God to dedicate their lives for their bride, the church. Are there men who become Priests for the wrong reasons, I’m sure. But, there are others who get it and make great Priests, just like there are men who discern Marriage who make great husbands. It doesn’t mean any of us are perfect, but it means that we are willing to endure struggles for the ones we love. And without God at the center of our vocation, the less likely we will be able to overcome the struggles in our relationships.
I’ve done some thinking about marriage and relationships, and one idea I’ve had is that there seems to be very little education available about “how to be in an intimate relationship with another person.”
Of course, given the church’s obvious discomfort with discussions of sex, and obvious ignorance about the reality of human relations, I do not expect to see anything practical from the church.
I wonder too how much education there is for seminarians on “how to be a priest, and in particular, how to deal with the problems you will encounter–problems which those educating clergy are reluctant to even mention”.
For example, we know that some ABPs and other higher-ups sexually abused seminarians–just as we know (from material written by some priests) that many higher-ups desperately wanted to maintain silence about that.
In the case of those entering seminary, many CLAIM “a calling from God”, but there is no way of either verifying this, or disproving it.
I can believe that many of those who “hear the calling” do in fact “love God”–just as I can believe they have other, ulterior reasons for entering the clergy.
FOR EXAMPLE, I’ve read lots of material FROM PRIESTS that in Italy, many men who knew they were gay entered seminary because they knew they would have respect from others as a priest, but disrespect from others as a gay lay person
OK, back to the topic at hand…
OK, so here’s a question for you regarding the characteristics of men who join the priesthood.
I’ve heard countless stories of physical and emotional abuse inflicted on parochial school students, from friends who attended them.
I would be surprised if you have not heard these stories.
I suppose lots of those teachers were “teaching brothers”–whatever exactly that means–but I know some of them were in fact priests.
So what kind of man would emotionally or physically abuse a student he’s teaching?
What kind of man would allow that to occur? It is IMPOSSIBLE that others in the clergy did not know about that abuse.
Individuals with sąme-sęx attraction should not become Priests. This is why we have had the scandals that we have had! One of our famer Priests is sitting in prison right now for bribing young men with drugs in exchange for sęxual favors.
Yes, and Archbishop Theodore McCarrick should have also gone to prison. When Seminarians are abused, they often go on to be abusers. This is true of many who are abused.
I have no sympathy for bad Priests, public and private school teachers, for cops, or anyone of authority who abuse others.
You seem to have a view of the Church that is all bad and no good. I know many Priests who feel hindered from doing great in this world out of fear that someone will lump them in with the evil done by bad Priests. We’ve all heard the jokes, “Don’t leave your kid around Fr. So-and-So.”
It is like individuals in the inner-city who do not trust good cops, because of the abuses of bad cops. Cops are more likely (statistically) to cheat on their wives. They are often more likely to commit domestic violence. Likewise, individuals who work with children (like teachers) are more likely to abuse children than someone not around children. But, does this make the police and teachers all bad? Neither should Priests.
The statistic on how many Marriages end in divorce is flawed. Often it is individuals who have been divorced multiple times who taint the numbers. Though it is true that these are failed Marriages, it is not true that this means that you, yourself, are 50% likely to fail at Marriage (as it is often misrepresented).
It has also been said that only like 4% of Arranged Marriages end in Divorce, but this does not mean that Arranged Marriages are all good either. I personally know four individuals who have been Arranged and three out of the four it has worked for them. I know one who it was Hell. The man she was arranged to was extremely abusive. Don’t get me wrong, I would love to choose who my daughters Marry ; )
My point is this, that there are healthy and unhealthy relationships. There are good times and bad times within any relationship (it’s in our vows).
To say the Church does not talk about sęx is untrue. Popes have written beautiful encyclicals about the topic of intimacy and love.
Not sure how descriptive you want Priests to talk about sęx. There is a Cardinal Victor who is Pope Francis’ right-hand-man right now who wrote a graphic book back in the mid-90’s, which is super creepy. If you want Priests to talk graphic about such topics, I question your motives for wanting them to do so.
And if you are referring to talking about abuse, there are programs in place for anyone (Priests and Lay Persons) who is working with the youth. I know, because I’ve had to sit through it twice and I personally feel like I am being punished for the sins of evil men. Everyone who goes through the program has to be finger-printed like a criminal. I personally think it is too much in response for the crimes committed by others. Punish the ones who committed the acts.
Why would any man want to become a Priest, in spite of being painted as a perpetrator? Because many are called by God and love the church (the people, not the institution).
Why do couples still choose Marriage, even though too many Marriages end in divorce? Because they trust that God will be with them through the good times and the bad; and that Sacramental Marriage is good for society and children.
Both Holy Order and Marriage are Sacraments. There is a difference between a validly Ordained Priest and someone who orders a certificate online. There is also a difference between someone who is Married at the courthouse and someone who is Sacramentally Married. There is not only a great sense of responsibility placed upon those who enter into a covenant before God, but there is also grace.
Once again your response shows lots of lack of info, assumptions, and so on.
I,ll respond to your message in several parts.
For starters, you said:
Individuals with sąme-sęx attraction should not become Priests. This is why we have had the scandals that we have have had!
Check out item # 4 in the article at the link below:
I’m a bit busy now, will try to respond more later.
Regarding clergy or the church providing candid, honest info about sex, it would be very useful, and would advance our conversation considerably, if you could cite a specific example on the internet that i could read.
On the contrary, I am willing to believe that the church does lots of good. But while acknowledging all that good, it’s also important to acknowledge the bad stuff. Does the amount of good done, outweigh the bad?
Re clergy, I believe that most are OK, decent human beings, really trying to serve God. But at the same time, it seems to me that a useful idea is to regard all clergy as Jew-hating, misogynistic pederasts UNTIL SHOWN TO BE OTHERWISE. That’s about history, after all, and safety.
I think I’m getting better at using this site; of course, apologies for typos and other blunders. More later.
I once asked a priest why oral & anal sex were prohibited. He said “because they cannot lead to procreation.” I replied “In other words, the church will not marry individuals who are unable to reproduce?–post-menopausal women, men with zero sperm counts, etc?”
His response: “miracles happen”.
My response: yeah, sure. Show me ONE.
A first marriage is obviously unlike any other relationships that people have–not least because it involves sex.
See if you can find me some official church teaching about sex in marriage. Of course, I mean reasonable details–that is, not necessarily graphic details about sex, but things like how the newly-married couple can discuss sex.
I’ve already told you that America Magazine is not a credible source. It is a Jesuit publication. Many of the Priests with SSA are Jesuits. Most famously, Fr. James Martin.
Yes, and I stand by it. This is not to say that if we removed the discipline of celibacy that we would not have scandals of another kind. There are plenty of examples of Protestant Clergy who have committed scandal.
I can give you two examples of Protestant Pastors where I live who have done some sick stuff (and I don’t mean “sick” in the way that skaters use the term, but I mean it in a bad way). “Ben the Baptist” as we call him was caught exposing himself to the girls track team. And in the City West of us, a Pastor, his Wife, and their Deacon (I’m not sure of the denomination) were caught trafficking under-aged girls.
So, allowing Married Clergy will not solve the problem of scandal in the church. If anything, it will just add to it. What we need is better Priests. And to take proper action when bad Priests commit evil acts.
I would say yes (but, I am bias ; ) Scripture tells us that we should not boast when we do good or toot our own horns, so there is a lot that is done that you may never hear about. I am a member of our Knights of Columbus media team and this is something that we often struggle with. Half the team thinks we should be telling people all the things we are doing in the community, so that other men might be encouraged to join. But, another half believes that we should take heart to Matthew 6:1-4.
You’re doing great : )
And you arrived at this conclusion…how?
How do you know that many of the priests with SSA are Jesuits? What is your source for this statement?
And how do you know Fr Martin has same-sex attraction? Has he admitted that? Has any credible individual accused him of SSA?
I did read Fr. Martin’s autobiography and you are correct, he has never directly come out and said that he has SSA. I actually quite enjoyed this book. Haven’t read any of his other books where he actually discusses the topic of SSA, but I’ve read plenty of his tweets (which I know is not real life ; )
America Magazine pushes a certain political ideology that promotes SSA. I know you will ask me for specifics, which would take me a bit of research, which will not convince you, as you sympathize with their cause, no?