Dawkins planning to arrest the Pope

[Scott1]

Just because something is unnatural doesn't mean I'm opposed to it. I have no problem with a homosexual's right to choose who they sleep with. Nor am I opposed to celibacy as a personal choice. I am opposed to celibacy as a requirement for people who obviously have sex drives.

Celibacy is a personal choice... no one is forced to become a priest.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

So.... everybody who has a sex drive should be married? to whom?

Celibacy is not just the practice of not being married, the church means it to be complete abstinence from sexual activity. You know this, so stop with your ******** arguments...

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Maybe you should start another thread for this before it get's going... I'm thinking a few people may take issue with most of the things you say here, to say the least.

Yes... It seems to be turning into a dog pile.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I didn't go to wikipedia to get the information, angellous linked me to a wikipedia article.

I see.

I referred you to wiki because you lack even the most basic knowledge that one can have to possess the vocabulary to participate in meaningful discussion.

We've seen you embarrass yourself with your lack of knowledge regarding the Crusades, and then on human sexuality... one can only wait to see what is next...

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Celibacy is a personal choice... no one is forced to become a priest.

That's true, nobody has to be a priest. But the poor guy's gonna be miserable anyway by listening to peoples' problems and all off-the-wall things they've done during the week. The least they can do is let the man get some.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Celibacy is a personal choice... no one is forced to become a priest.

However, celibacy for the priesthood is a matter of policy, not doctrine, isn't it?

It wouldn't violate anything in the Magisterium for the Pope to allow Roman Rite priests to marry; there are already married Eastern Rite priests in communion with Rome as well as converted Anglican priests who were married before they were ordained in the Catholic Church.

However, this may all be splitting hairs, since Pope Benedict has made it clear that he does not intend to drop the celibacy requirement for the priesthood.

Edit: but wait a minute - isn't the priesthood supposed to be a divine calling? If it really works the way it's supposed to, then isn't every priest "forced" to be a priest... in a manner of speaking?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Just because something is unnatural doesn't mean I'm opposed to it. I have no problem with a homosexual's right to choose who they sleep with. Nor am I opposed to celibacy as a personal choice. I am opposed to celibacy as a requirement for people who obviously have sex drives.

Yes... untangle your confusion...

Almost all recent scientific research suggests that homosexuality is perfectly natural.

But for thousands of years (I know of Plurarch and then Plato before him) who distinguished sexuality from reproductive desire.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

However, celibacy for the priesthood is a matter of policy, not doctrine, isn't it?

Policy always comes from dogma.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I see.

I referred you to wiki because you lack even the most basic knowledge that one can have to possess the vocabulary to participate in meaningful discussion.

We've seen you embarrass yourself with your lack of knowledge regarding the Crusades, and then on human sexuality... one can only wait to see what is next...

Lol hater... I was right about the Crusades by the way, as I already posted. You should have paid more attention during history in high school.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Lol hater... I was right about the Crusades by the way, as I already posted. You should have paid more attention during history in high school.

:biglaugh:

Laziness combined with incompetence can produce some radical results.

 

[Scott1]

However, celibacy for the priesthood is a matter of policy, not doctrine, isn't it?

Yep...

It wouldn't violate anything in the Magisterium for the Pope to allow Roman Rite priests to marry; there are already married Eastern Rite priests in communion with Rome as well as converted Anglican priests who were married before they were ordained in the Catholic Church.

Yep again... thus my point about it not being "forced" upon anyone. The Sacrament of Marriage is of the same "standing" as the Sacrament of Holy Orders, so I don't think anyone who chooses not to become a priest because celibacy is an obstacle is "missing" or "lacking" anything....

However, this may all be splitting hairs, since Pope Benedict has made it clear that he does not intend to drop the celibacy requirement for the priesthood.

True... some day I hope.

Edit: but wait a minute - isn't the priesthood supposed to be a divine calling? If it really works the way it's supposed to, then isn't every priest "forced" to be a priest... in a manner of speaking?

Every "calling" must have a discernment period... during this time, everyone who thinks they are "called" to the Priesthood is challenged to search their feelings and this includes the gift of celibacy and their ability to live a celibate life. More than 40% of those "called" to the priesthood and enter religious life later drop out for one reason or another, so I'm not sure it's the "divine calling" that you might think it is.

Hope that helps.

 

[sojourner]

Ok I agree. Arch Bishop Romero is one of my hero's. He died for the poor in Latin America.

Yeah, Romero was Fantastico!

 

[sojourner]

I never said you had to be married to breed, I'm a happily single breeding expert lol. I said the church should allow the priests to have wives because the Catholic church requires its members to be married in order to breed.

You said that celibacy was unnatural. In other words, only those who are married are natural?

 

[Scott1]

Policy always comes from dogma.

What is the dogma behind this practice?

I've only heard of celibacy referred to as a "sign" of devotion to Christ (CCC#1579) and don't remember it being tied to any specific "dogma" or theological foundation....

 

[sojourner]

Celibacy is not just the practice of not being married, the church means it to be complete abstinence from sexual activity. You know this, so stop with your ******** arguments...

Celibacy = no marriage.
Chastity = no sex.
The reason the Church sees the two as one is because sex outside of matrimony is forbidden. But they are not the same thing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What is the dogma behind this practice?

I've only heard of celibacy referred to as a "sign" of devotion to Christ (CCC#1579) and don't remember it being tied to any specific "dogma" or theological foundation....

The Church didn't just pull it out of the air.

It was theologically and biblically defended from the beginning.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

You said that celibacy was unnatural. In other words, only those who are married are natural?

For the last time, I'm referring to celibacy in the way that the Catholic church does. They take celibacy to mean abstinence from all sexual activity, since sexual activity outside of marriage is considered a sin for Catholics. I never said it is unnatural not to be married, I'm not a prude Christian...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What is the dogma behind this practice?

I've only heard of celibacy referred to as a "sign" of devotion to Christ (CCC#1579) and don't remember it being tied to any specific "dogma" or theological foundation....

We might be coming from separate points of view concerning what "dogma" is... I would loosely define it in this context as "religiously motivated" rather than "unalterably religiously motivated."

 

[Scott1]

The Church didn't just pull it out of the air.

I know that... but my understanding is that it was NEVER tied to a dogma, but was always reffered to as a "gift" or the like...

It was theologically and biblically defended from the beginning.

???

Most early Bishops were married.... and while some might argue that celibacy is the objectively superior state, this does not mean that it is for everyone. Christ seemed to imply this when he says, "Not all men can accept this precept, but only those to whom it is given. . . . There are those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this let him receive it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

In addition, celibacy is not the superior state for all people. Aquinas states, " Though virginity is better than conjugal continence, a married person may be better than a virgin for two reasons. First, on the part of chastity itself; if to wit, the married person is more prepared in mind to observe virginity, if it should be expedient, than the one who is actually a virgin. Secondly, because perhaps the person who is not a virgin has some more excellent virtue" (Summa Theologiae I:152:4).

So... gift, not dogma.... or am I not understanding what you mean?
------------------------------
**EDIT**

We might be coming from separate points of view concerning what "dogma" is... I would loosely define it in this context as "religiously motivated" rather than "unalterably religiously motivated."

Gotcha now.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

For the last time, I'm referring to celibacy in the way that the Catholic church does. They take celibacy to mean abstinence from all sexual activity, since sexual activity outside of marriage is considered a sin for Catholics. I never said it is unnatural not to be married, I'm not a prude Christian...

Now, for the first time, can you provide evidence that celibacy is unnatural (and if so, harmful??) - even in the way that Roman Catholics practice it?