Over the years, I think you've had a continuing problem with the subjects of "fiduciary responsibility" and "risk management" (related concepts.) I think it's an "idea barrier"- something like a "language barrier", but with incompatible IDEAS rather than incompatible WORDS. I will try to explain how they relate here.
Simply put, a "fiduciary responsibility" is the responsibility someone has in running a system, a program, etc. The RCC's system of ordination- candidacy and all the steps to ordination- is a program (or set of programs) that is meant for people to go through. The RCC has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure it's safe for the participants, and actually does what it's purported to do (i.e. train their clergy.) Now, "risk management" means to look at a system or program and see where possible dangers lie, and eliminate the risks by redesign or by adding counter-measures specifically to address them. (If the candidates have to ford a shallow creek, risk management will either say to make a little bridge or to relocate what they have to do so they don't cross that creek, for example.)
The RCC has a responsibility- one which they've shirked- to go over their program, identify ALL the risks, then do whatever they have to in order to eliminate the risks, or at least minimize the risks. Just because no measure is 100% foolproof- especially against human stupidity- does not mean no measures are taken. So, you sound like you're saying that allowing marriage won't do ANYTHING to the risk of sodomy, and therefore marriage should not be discussed nor instituted. Au contraire. Marriage won't solve ALL the problems, but it will alleviate a few: 1) More responsible candidates would step forward, sure they could serve God as well as have a wife and possibly family. This will reverse the current trend of decreasing numbers of clergy, which is a problem. Alleviating this will mean it will be easier to take a hard line on unfit clergy. The current clergy, to a degree, are worried that their numbers are so small that it may be worse to lose more priests than to keep a "potential" molester in place. With more clergy, they can see what is the greater risk. So, those alone will address 2 problems. Furthermore, by allowing priests to marry and have conjugal relations with their own wives, they will have a solution to problems of how to address persistent lustful desires besides "leave the clergy or molest someone." So, molestation cases will go down, at least in part, with SOME of the motives to molest removed.
So, risk management would suggest that allowing clergy to marry MAY be the solution they need. (I say "MAY" because they will need to go over the possible consequences of this, and address them ahead of time. Personally, I think it's worthwhile and sensible, but they may not agree with me. I say the benefits outweigh the handicaps.)
========================
What we DO agree on is that those who realized they couldn't do the job responsibly should have resigned rather than molest, and should have been dumped and charged by police if they refused to resign and chose to molest instead. It's not as if the problem is some kind of secret- everybody knows they're supposed to be celibate long before they submit an application. I know someone who went to Catholic school (not me.) They did a field trip to a place where they train priests- a retreat or something (AFAIK, this is standard, and I was on one such field trip, long ago.) In his case, the clergyman leading the trip addressed him privately, and asked if he'd ever considered Holy Orders. He emphatically said he would never consider it, because clergy had to be celibate for life and there was no way he was going to go along with that. Mildly amused, the clergyman replied that he was glad that he'd already considered that and had taken it into account, since it was better to realize that and not apply than to realize it once one is a candidate. (I'm paraphrasing the words but I have the ideas represented fairly.)
I think the RCC is going to need strong measures to fix this- and is going to have to make some permanent changes to fix this. They have the responsibility to do whatever they have to in order to safeguard the flock.
Thanks for that; we agree on a lot but let me try to convey what I believe: I feel like they had good reason to institute celebacy and shouldn't discontinue it. Complete mastery over the flesh and denial of self, denial of carnal urges, temptations and ambitions was and is a godly gift and goal. Its all part of the commitment to serve the Lord with singleness of purpose. I think they should keep that as a standard and not think that that in itself is evil or the cause of carnality and sodomy. (I think that's a cop out to blame the church when they went in knowing what the rules were.) Priests who keep their commitment are special in that way and amazing examples of denial of self, and I believe have been gifted. If this is continued they'd be great examples to the flock and worthy of imitation. The ones who don't keep their commitment should resign and if they don't should be removed by the system. I would rather see only a few who keep their commitment than open it up to many priests who don't which is apparently what we've seen.
Thanks for that; we agree on a lot but let me try to convey what I believe: I feel like they had good reason to institute celebacy and shouldn't discontinue it. Complete mastery over the flesh and denial of self, denial of carnal urges, temptations and ambitions was and is a godly gift and goal. Its all part of the commitment to serve the Lord with singleness of purpose. I think they should keep that as a standard and not think that that in itself is evil or the cause of carnality and sodomy. (I think that's a cop out to blame the church when they went in knowing what the rules were.) Priests who keep their commitment are special in that way and amazing examples of denial of self, and I believe have been gifted. If this is continued they'd be great examples to the flock and worthy of imitation. The ones who don't keep their commitment should resign and if they don't should be removed by the system. I would rather see only a few who keep their commitment than open it up to many priests who don't which is apparently what we've seen.
I'm going to agree that- if one CAN practice celibacy as part of an overall picture to dedicate one's entire life to serving God- that it shouldn't be discouraged. I also agree that candidates for the priesthood go in knowing the sacrifices and the difficulties.
On the other hand, it's also true that, historically, we've seen that instituting it as international church-wide led to difficulties, primarily that of "we're not staying celibate" in previous centuries, and in this century with molestations. "If you can't be chaste, at least be careful" was a saying among the "celibate" priests in one European country at one time. Mind you, we've seen quite a bit of this preserved in history- and we know the RCC can keep some secrets so there's almost certainly plenty that slipped between the cracks of recorded history and/or was hidden by the RCC. So, I don't think that making this a requirement across ALL the clergy- and needing local clergy worldwide who have to follow it- is practical. As history has shown us, they broke the vow of celibacy one way or another, and the present is no different. As for those who didn't break it, we're looking at priests who left because they wanted to start a family, lots of candidates who never BECAME priests because they wanted families, and- as one priest said on the subject- a high rate of drinking problems among the celibate clergy as they struggle to remain celibate. Right now, if they clear out ALL the non-celibates including ALL the molesters, the number of priests would drop- and they're at a low rate of candidacy as it is.
So, history has shown us that the required celibacy largely does not work, and it causes pious Catholics to refuse to consider the clergy solely because of that "DISCIPLINE." The RCC REQUIRES parish priestS (plural) in local churches EVERYWHERE since they are the only ones who can consecrate the Eucharist. If you require a purge of all that really can't remain celibate, then you'll have many local parishes unable to function as churches because they can't hold a mass or have Penance!
To me, this suggests 2 possibilities:
1) remove the mandatory requirement of the "DISCIPLINE" of celibacy on priests, allowing for non-celibate candidates of good conscience to fulfill the role of priest
2) expand the deaconate to allow deacons to fulfill all the required functions of priests in a parish (consecration, penance, etc), allowing for the non-celibate deacons of good conscience to serve as the RCC needs
The RCC needs more people to fulfill the functions of priests- and the lack of priests is increasing. Either they can allow more people to become priests, or allow the functions of priests to pass to other pious servants of the church. I don't see a third option that addresses the need for more people to fulfill the functions of priests. If you see one- one that actually allows those functions to be fulfilled and not leave parishes bereft of a local leader- then please outline it.
I also agree that candidates for the priesthood go in knowing the sacrifices and the difficulties.
I disagree that candidates go in knowing the sacrifices and difficulties. There's a massive difference between hearing a teacher state the required "sacrifices and the difficulties" and knowing them as a result of having to deal with the inevitable changes in one's desires resulting from hormonal changes as time goes on.
Maybe the RCC should openly study and explore the practice of voluntary castration with candidates for the priesthood. If THAT sounds bizarre, perhaps that's because failing to grasp the enormity of the challenge of celibacy has been such a humongous catastrophe.
It looks like not allowing priests and sister or nuns to marry has opened the door in the Roman Catholic church for homosexuals among male priests and female sisters or nuns.
I'm going to agree that- if one CAN practice celibacy as part of an overall picture to dedicate one's entire life to serving God- that it shouldn't be discouraged. I also agree that candidates for the priesthood go in knowing the sacrifices and the difficulties.
On the other hand, it's also true that, historically, we've seen that instituting it as international church-wide led to difficulties, primarily that of "we're not staying celibate" in previous centuries, and in this century with molestations. "If you can't be chaste, at least be careful" was a saying among the "celibate" priests in one European country at one time. Mind you, we've seen quite a bit of this preserved in history- and we know the RCC can keep some secrets so there's almost certainly plenty that slipped between the cracks of recorded history and/or was hidden by the RCC. So, I don't think that making this a requirement across ALL the clergy- and needing local clergy worldwide who have to follow it- is practical. As history has shown us, they broke the vow of celibacy one way or another, and the present is no different. As for those who didn't break it, we're looking at priests who left because they wanted to start a family, lots of candidates who never BECAME priests because they wanted families, and- as one priest said on the subject- a high rate of drinking problems among the celibate clergy as they struggle to remain celibate. Right now, if they clear out ALL the non-celibates including ALL the molesters, the number of priests would drop- and they're at a low rate of candidacy as it is.
So, history has shown us that the required celibacy largely does not work, and it causes pious Catholics to refuse to consider the clergy solely because of that "DISCIPLINE." The RCC REQUIRES parish priestS (plural) in local churches EVERYWHERE since they are the only ones who can consecrate the Eucharist. If you require a purge of all that really can't remain celibate, then you'll have many local parishes unable to function as churches because they can't hold a mass or have Penance!
To me, this suggests 2 possibilities:
1) remove the mandatory requirement of the "DISCIPLINE" of celibacy on priests, allowing for non-celibate candidates of good conscience to fulfill the role of priest
2) expand the deaconate to allow deacons to fulfill all the required functions of priests in a parish (consecration, penance, etc), allowing for the non-celibate deacons of good conscience to serve as the RCC needs
The RCC needs more people to fulfill the functions of priests- and the lack of priests is increasing. Either they can allow more people to become priests, or allow the functions of priests to pass to other pious servants of the church. I don't see a third option that addresses the need for more people to fulfill the functions of priests. If you see one- one that actually allows those functions to be fulfilled and not leave parishes bereft of a local leader- then please outline it.
I agree - celibacy doesn't work. It isn't the way humanity is expected to live and prosper.
I think it's a complete fallacy to think that a complete denial of the flesh is what God expects from us. That's THE PROBLEM. People are being led to believe that there's a higher level of spirituality to denying who and what they are. We're made male and female, and we have the task set before us by our Creator to live our human, physical lives with His treasure in an earthen vessel. We will not be male and female "in the resurrection" according to Jesus - but it's set before us to live righteously before God in this life, in the life we are given.
There's two extremes here and both are wrong - one, that by perfecting our humanity we will be more holy and perfect before God and two, that we "do as we will" and exert no controls over our physical shell.
I know we all may not come to agreement on this, but I feel compelled to spell out exactly why I believe these practices of the Roman Catholic religion are wrong and counter productive to godly mindfulness and practice. It's institutionalized error. They may be nice people, and some may succeed or be happy but like I say, you can spit in the wind and once in awhile it won't blow back in your face.
It looks like not allowing priests and sister or nuns to marry has opened the door in the Roman Catholic church for homosexuals among male priests and female sisters or nuns.
Some years ago, I read a news story about Afghanistan. There's some super-repressive sub-culture there that doesn't allow pre-marital sex, but it also doesn't allow flirting or, apparently, even MEETING the opposite sex. It seemed obvious that they were attempting to prevent pre-marital sex, but in the process, they disallowed even conversation or being in the vicinity of each other. One side-effect was unexpected, at least by me. With a complete vacuum of women in any manner whatsoever in their lives, some of the men were paying some adolescent (teen) boys to dress up as women and, basically, pretend to be women. The boys got attention and got gifts. They also got molested. Rather than provoke outrage, it seemed like their society was used to it and didn't see any problems with it.
I'm not saying this EXACT thing happens whenever ALL sex is disallowed and marriage is not allowed (de facto like in Afghanistan or de jure like the RCC clergy), but there certainly seems to be correlations between people doing stuff like this and marriage and every single form of sex is disallowed.
I agree - celibacy doesn't work. It isn't the way humanity is expected to live and prosper.
I think it's a complete fallacy to think that a complete denial of the flesh is what God expects from us. That's THE PROBLEM. People are being led to believe that there's a higher level of spirituality to denying who and what they are. We're made male and female, and we have the task set before us by our Creator to live our human, physical lives with His treasure in an earthen vessel. We will not be male and female "in the resurrection" according to Jesus - but it's set before us to live righteously before God in this life, in the life we are given.
There's two extremes here and both are wrong - one, that by perfecting our humanity we will be more holy and perfect before God and two, that we "do as we will" and exert no controls over our physical shell.
I know we all may not come to agreement on this, but I feel compelled to spell out exactly why I believe these practices of the Roman Catholic religion are wrong and counter productive to godly mindfulness and practice. It's institutionalized error. They may be nice people, and some may succeed or be happy but like I say, you can spit in the wind and once in awhile it won't blow back in your face.
We saw the Epicureans and the Stoics in Acts briefly- where the Epicureans felt the key to happiness was to indulge freely, and the Stoics thought the key to enlightenment was to deny the flesh and all worldly pleasures. We were never told to follow EITHER as an example, or that EITHER was recommended or even a good idea. However, it seems like some people will always think the key to spirituality will be to completely deny the flesh. It hasn't worked yet in all of history, so I doubt it's going to start working now.
We saw the Epicureans and the Stoics in Acts briefly- where the Epicureans felt the key to happiness was to indulge freely, and the Stoics thought the key to enlightenment was to deny the flesh and all worldly pleasures. We were never told to follow EITHER as an example, or that EITHER was recommended or even a good idea. However, it seems like some people will always think the key to spirituality will be to completely deny the flesh. It hasn't worked yet in all of history, so I doubt it's going to start working now.
We can go to Ephesians ..."Chapter 5 begins with an admonition to imitate Christ. In order to do so, Christians must avoid sexual immorality, vulgar language, foolishness, and other inappropriate attitudes. Paul warns that those who persist in these behaviors are not part of the kingdom of God. The passage then transitions to an explanation of mutual submission, including that between husbands and wives. Wives are to submit to their husbands, and respect them. Husbands are to love their wives in a Christ-like, sacrificial, and humble way.".....Ephesians 5 compares salvation and the church/Christ relationship to marriage and the relationship between men and women becoming one in marriage to all races and people's becoming one and in unity through Christ, in His Church.
I don't see the N. T. teaching denial, celibacy or abstinence as a specific means to an end of a more or most spiritual life. If it did, it would have to compare THAT to living in the Body of Christ, and not to something like husbands and wives united in marriage.....in fact it seems obvious that it's through that kind of relationship that unity and real transcendence can be achieved.
What it does teach is to avoid sinful behaviors, including sexual immorality. So again, it would appear the RC's have created the ideal circumstance to encourage all manner of immorality, by writing a law that it's priests must agree to denying one of their most basic, human, male impulses for their entire lives. A petri dish of ingredients for making a virus. That's not learning to love - no wonder they end up drowning in shame and conflict!
It looks like not allowing priests and sister or nuns to marry has opened the door in the Roman Catholic church for homosexuals among male priests and female sisters or nuns.
Mark, are you suggesting that's the ONLY expression of non-traditional sexuality the RCC "discipline" causes?
If so, I would suggest otherwise. As in, ALL (or at least many) manner(s) of what contemporary societies would or have considered perverse.
And from a couple other responses, I figure I'm not the only one who holds that view.
ROME — The sexual abuse of nuns and religious women by Catholic priests and bishops — and the abortions that have sometimes resulted — has for years been overshadowed by other scandals in the Roman Catholic Church.
ROME — The sexual abuse of nuns and religious women by Catholic priests and bishops — and the abortions that have sometimes resulted — has for years been overshadowed by other scandals in the Roman Catholic Church.
No, I am not suggesting that. Why are you thinking that? I simply added this link for people who want to read it regarding the risk of homosexuality for people who are not allowed to marry. This article makes this clear at least to me. And it is interesting that with sometimes homosexuality, priests also can sometimes have sex with women.
No, I am not suggesting that. Why are you thinking that? I simply added this link for people who want to read it regarding the risk of homosexuality for people who are not allowed to marry. This article makes this clear at least to me. And it is interesting that with sometimes homosexuality, priests also can sometimes have sex with women.
Thanks for the clarification. Why was I thinking that? Because you didn't previously specify. That's what asking questions for clarification is all about.
Another thing I'd throw into the mix is the give and take aspect of this. Seldom does anyone do anything without thought for what they're going to get out of it. What the outcomes will be.
That's natural. Normal. I'm not suggesting that's wrong or even out of the ordinary. Look at Hebrews 12:1, 2
1. Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us
2 looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
This is a very clear instruction to look to Jesus (author and finisher of faith) and His example of focusing on "the joy set before Him".
Some people choose to go off and live in a cave or to adopt a manner of life that excludes contact with the outside world.
A great example of that is prison, "jail". When a person is considered dangerous to his community and unable to live safely in it's influences they're taken out of that society and put in a box where they can't hurt themselves or others.
Kind of an extreme solution but it's one that does get used, right? That's not the kind of life Jesus taught us to shoot for - consider Matthew 15:1-3 and then 10...
Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
It's a fundamental precept of Christianity to allow the spirit of God in us to do it's work, to lead and guide us in both the will as well as the work that God has for us to do. We are instructed to change our thinking, not be conformed to the reasoning of this age and to rather enjoy the Age of God's Grace in Christ fully.
Again - I think there's a range of choices that God allows us to have and to make but to physically shut out the rest of the world in an institutionalized set of traditions and rules ("canon law") sounds like the wrong direction.
The Jews had 3 religious, philosophical sects - Pharisees, Saducees and the Essenes. There's a lot of information in links like this one which may provide a spring board for more academic historical sources for you, if you need them.
My overall impression, very "global" view of what the Church of Christ is as described in the Bible would certainly allow for those who choose to limit or expand their personal lives to include or exclude marriage and relationships between men and women. I would NEVER assume that to mean that the teacher, pastoral or leadership roles should be narrowed down to exclude them or to expect that having done so they would thrive in such a narrow habitat. It's just counter to everything I read. Selah....
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
9
10
14
Popular Days
Sep 12
12
Sep 13
10
Aug 19
9
Aug 30
6
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 15 posts
socks 9 posts
Rocky 10 posts
WordWolf 14 posts
Popular Days
Sep 12 2019
12 posts
Sep 13 2019
10 posts
Aug 19 2019
9 posts
Aug 30 2019
6 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
This is a baffling statement. Can you expound a bit more?
Rocky
Now you're getting into church politics. Probably leads to a rabbit hole that would be counterproductive here. However, like waysider suggested, perhaps you could clarify/expound on that first se
WordWolf
More or less, that's what I said (I used more words, not less. ;) )
oldiesman
Thanks for that; we agree on a lot but let me try to convey what I believe: I feel like they had good reason to institute celebacy and shouldn't discontinue it. Complete mastery over the flesh and denial of self, denial of carnal urges, temptations and ambitions was and is a godly gift and goal. Its all part of the commitment to serve the Lord with singleness of purpose. I think they should keep that as a standard and not think that that in itself is evil or the cause of carnality and sodomy. (I think that's a cop out to blame the church when they went in knowing what the rules were.) Priests who keep their commitment are special in that way and amazing examples of denial of self, and I believe have been gifted. If this is continued they'd be great examples to the flock and worthy of imitation. The ones who don't keep their commitment should resign and if they don't should be removed by the system. I would rather see only a few who keep their commitment than open it up to many priests who don't which is apparently what we've seen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm going to agree that- if one CAN practice celibacy as part of an overall picture to dedicate one's entire life to serving God- that it shouldn't be discouraged. I also agree that candidates for the priesthood go in knowing the sacrifices and the difficulties.
On the other hand, it's also true that, historically, we've seen that instituting it as international church-wide led to difficulties, primarily that of "we're not staying celibate" in previous centuries, and in this century with molestations. "If you can't be chaste, at least be careful" was a saying among the "celibate" priests in one European country at one time. Mind you, we've seen quite a bit of this preserved in history- and we know the RCC can keep some secrets so there's almost certainly plenty that slipped between the cracks of recorded history and/or was hidden by the RCC. So, I don't think that making this a requirement across ALL the clergy- and needing local clergy worldwide who have to follow it- is practical. As history has shown us, they broke the vow of celibacy one way or another, and the present is no different. As for those who didn't break it, we're looking at priests who left because they wanted to start a family, lots of candidates who never BECAME priests because they wanted families, and- as one priest said on the subject- a high rate of drinking problems among the celibate clergy as they struggle to remain celibate. Right now, if they clear out ALL the non-celibates including ALL the molesters, the number of priests would drop- and they're at a low rate of candidacy as it is.
So, history has shown us that the required celibacy largely does not work, and it causes pious Catholics to refuse to consider the clergy solely because of that "DISCIPLINE." The RCC REQUIRES parish priestS (plural) in local churches EVERYWHERE since they are the only ones who can consecrate the Eucharist. If you require a purge of all that really can't remain celibate, then you'll have many local parishes unable to function as churches because they can't hold a mass or have Penance!
To me, this suggests 2 possibilities:
1) remove the mandatory requirement of the "DISCIPLINE" of celibacy on priests, allowing for non-celibate candidates of good conscience to fulfill the role of priest
2) expand the deaconate to allow deacons to fulfill all the required functions of priests in a parish (consecration, penance, etc), allowing for the non-celibate deacons of good conscience to serve as the RCC needs
The RCC needs more people to fulfill the functions of priests- and the lack of priests is increasing. Either they can allow more people to become priests, or allow the functions of priests to pass to other pious servants of the church. I don't see a third option that addresses the need for more people to fulfill the functions of priests. If you see one- one that actually allows those functions to be fulfilled and not leave parishes bereft of a local leader- then please outline it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I disagree that candidates go in knowing the sacrifices and difficulties. There's a massive difference between hearing a teacher state the required "sacrifices and the difficulties" and knowing them as a result of having to deal with the inevitable changes in one's desires resulting from hormonal changes as time goes on.
Maybe the RCC should openly study and explore the practice of voluntary castration with candidates for the priesthood. If THAT sounds bizarre, perhaps that's because failing to grasp the enormity of the challenge of celibacy has been such a humongous catastrophe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Homosexual Clergy in the Roman Catholic Church
It looks like not allowing priests and sister or nuns to marry has opened the door in the Roman Catholic church for homosexuals among male priests and female sisters or nuns.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
A rare occasion where I used less, not more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I agree - celibacy doesn't work. It isn't the way humanity is expected to live and prosper.
I think it's a complete fallacy to think that a complete denial of the flesh is what God expects from us. That's THE PROBLEM. People are being led to believe that there's a higher level of spirituality to denying who and what they are. We're made male and female, and we have the task set before us by our Creator to live our human, physical lives with His treasure in an earthen vessel. We will not be male and female "in the resurrection" according to Jesus - but it's set before us to live righteously before God in this life, in the life we are given.
There's two extremes here and both are wrong - one, that by perfecting our humanity we will be more holy and perfect before God and two, that we "do as we will" and exert no controls over our physical shell.
I know we all may not come to agreement on this, but I feel compelled to spell out exactly why I believe these practices of the Roman Catholic religion are wrong and counter productive to godly mindfulness and practice. It's institutionalized error. They may be nice people, and some may succeed or be happy but like I say, you can spit in the wind and once in awhile it won't blow back in your face.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Some years ago, I read a news story about Afghanistan. There's some super-repressive sub-culture there that doesn't allow pre-marital sex, but it also doesn't allow flirting or, apparently, even MEETING the opposite sex. It seemed obvious that they were attempting to prevent pre-marital sex, but in the process, they disallowed even conversation or being in the vicinity of each other. One side-effect was unexpected, at least by me. With a complete vacuum of women in any manner whatsoever in their lives, some of the men were paying some adolescent (teen) boys to dress up as women and, basically, pretend to be women. The boys got attention and got gifts. They also got molested. Rather than provoke outrage, it seemed like their society was used to it and didn't see any problems with it.
I'm not saying this EXACT thing happens whenever ALL sex is disallowed and marriage is not allowed (de facto like in Afghanistan or de jure like the RCC clergy), but there certainly seems to be correlations between people doing stuff like this and marriage and every single form of sex is disallowed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
We saw the Epicureans and the Stoics in Acts briefly- where the Epicureans felt the key to happiness was to indulge freely, and the Stoics thought the key to enlightenment was to deny the flesh and all worldly pleasures. We were never told to follow EITHER as an example, or that EITHER was recommended or even a good idea. However, it seems like some people will always think the key to spirituality will be to completely deny the flesh. It hasn't worked yet in all of history, so I doubt it's going to start working now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
We can go to Ephesians ..."Chapter 5 begins with an admonition to imitate Christ. In order to do so, Christians must avoid sexual immorality, vulgar language, foolishness, and other inappropriate attitudes. Paul warns that those who persist in these behaviors are not part of the kingdom of God. The passage then transitions to an explanation of mutual submission, including that between husbands and wives. Wives are to submit to their husbands, and respect them. Husbands are to love their wives in a Christ-like, sacrificial, and humble way.".....Ephesians 5 compares salvation and the church/Christ relationship to marriage and the relationship between men and women becoming one in marriage to all races and people's becoming one and in unity through Christ, in His Church.
I don't see the N. T. teaching denial, celibacy or abstinence as a specific means to an end of a more or most spiritual life. If it did, it would have to compare THAT to living in the Body of Christ, and not to something like husbands and wives united in marriage.....in fact it seems obvious that it's through that kind of relationship that unity and real transcendence can be achieved.
What it does teach is to avoid sinful behaviors, including sexual immorality. So again, it would appear the RC's have created the ideal circumstance to encourage all manner of immorality, by writing a law that it's priests must agree to denying one of their most basic, human, male impulses for their entire lives. A petri dish of ingredients for making a virus. That's not learning to love - no wonder they end up drowning in shame and conflict!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Mark, are you suggesting that's the ONLY expression of non-traditional sexuality the RCC "discipline" causes?
If so, I would suggest otherwise. As in, ALL (or at least many) manner(s) of what contemporary societies would or have considered perverse.
And from a couple other responses, I figure I'm not the only one who holds that view.
For example, this news story in the NYTimes from February 2019,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
No, I am not suggesting that. Why are you thinking that? I simply added this link for people who want to read it regarding the risk of homosexuality for people who are not allowed to marry. This article makes this clear at least to me. And it is interesting that with sometimes homosexuality, priests also can sometimes have sex with women.
Homosexual Clergy in the Roman Catholic Church
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Thanks for the clarification. Why was I thinking that? Because you didn't previously specify. That's what asking questions for clarification is all about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Another thing I'd throw into the mix is the give and take aspect of this. Seldom does anyone do anything without thought for what they're going to get out of it. What the outcomes will be.
That's natural. Normal. I'm not suggesting that's wrong or even out of the ordinary. Look at Hebrews 12:1, 2
1. Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us
2 looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
This is a very clear instruction to look to Jesus (author and finisher of faith) and His example of focusing on "the joy set before Him".
Some people choose to go off and live in a cave or to adopt a manner of life that excludes contact with the outside world.
A great example of that is prison, "jail". When a person is considered dangerous to his community and unable to live safely in it's influences they're taken out of that society and put in a box where they can't hurt themselves or others.
Kind of an extreme solution but it's one that does get used, right? That's not the kind of life Jesus taught us to shoot for - consider Matthew 15:1-3 and then 10...
Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
It's a fundamental precept of Christianity to allow the spirit of God in us to do it's work, to lead and guide us in both the will as well as the work that God has for us to do. We are instructed to change our thinking, not be conformed to the reasoning of this age and to rather enjoy the Age of God's Grace in Christ fully.
Again - I think there's a range of choices that God allows us to have and to make but to physically shut out the rest of the world in an institutionalized set of traditions and rules ("canon law") sounds like the wrong direction.
The Jews had 3 religious, philosophical sects - Pharisees, Saducees and the Essenes. There's a lot of information in links like this one which may provide a spring board for more academic historical sources for you, if you need them.
My overall impression, very "global" view of what the Church of Christ is as described in the Bible would certainly allow for those who choose to limit or expand their personal lives to include or exclude marriage and relationships between men and women. I would NEVER assume that to mean that the teacher, pastoral or leadership roles should be narrowed down to exclude them or to expect that having done so they would thrive in such a narrow habitat. It's just counter to everything I read. Selah....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.