Celibacy

[Jude3b]

I just read in the Sunday paper that the Roman Catholic religion had to pay out $3,000,000.00 to a single lady because of numerous rapes by a Roman Catholic priest starting when this lady was only 6 years old. Absolutely shocking. When I read that I wanted to puke with disgust. I can only imagine how it would feel to know that my own 6 year old daughter was raped. Horrible thought.

Couldn't this problem with rapists and pedophiles serving in the Roman Catholic priesthood be solved at least a little, if they would just allow priests and nuns to marry?

[Jude3b]

"Marriage is honourable in all..." (Hebrews 13:4). Surely all would include the Roman Catholic priest!

[Jude3b]

Celibacy, if it because the Roman Catholic church does not want to pay the millions of dollars it would cost each year to support the families of priests and nuns?

[Jude3b]

I just read in the Sunday paper that the Roman Catholic religion had to pay out $3,000,000.00 to a single lady because of numerous rapes by a Roman Catholic priest starting when this lady was only 6 years old. Absolutely shocking. When I read that I wanted to puke with disgust. I can only imagine how it would feel to know that my own 6 year old daughter was raped. Horrible thought.

Couldn't this problem with rapists and pedophiles serving in the Roman Catholic priesthood be solved at least a little, if they would just allow priests and nuns to marry?

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." (I Tim. 3:2) From the beginning, it has always been God's plan that men should have wives (see Gen 2:18)

[Amazing Rando]

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." (I Tim. 3:2) From the beginning, it has always been God's plan that men should have wives (see Gen 2:18)

But not all people. Would you say to the single man or woman that he or she is living contrary to God's plan? I wouldn't, especially since Paul specifically praises the celibate lifestyle as "good" in 1 Corinthians 7:1.

[brother vinny]

Plus, 1 Tim 3:2 isn't a compunction to get married, but a prohibition of having polygamists as bishops.

[Jude3b]

Plus, 1 Tim 3:2 isn't a compunction to get married, but a prohibition of having polygamists as bishops.

Celibacy enforced by Romanism upon its bishops and priests is shown by its fruits to produce evils such as homosexuality and pedophilia. Celibacy in the Roman Catholic religion is merely a regulation of that denomination and not based on Scripture.
"
"The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife (I Tim. 3:2 is a qualification for a bishop). Peter was qualified to be a bishop because He was the husband of one wife. Modern day Roman Catholic bishops are not qualified to be bishops. The Holy Spirit uses marriage as a type of that most sacred of all relationships, the union of the church and the believer with his Lord (Eph. 5:23-33). Romanism teaches the opposite, showing once again that it is an apostate religion and not the church of God -the body of Christ.

[NonTrinitarian]

Celibacy enforced by Romanism upon its bishops and priests is shown by its fruits to produce evils such as homosexuality and pedophilia. Celibacy in the Roman Catholic religion is merely a regulation of that denomination and not based on Scripture.
"
"The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife (I Tim. 3:2 is a qualification for a bishop). Peter was qualified to be a bishop because He was the husband of one wife. Modern day Roman Catholic bishops are not qualified to be bishops. The Holy Spirit uses marriage as a type of that most sacred of all relationships, the union of the church and the believer with his Lord (Eph. 5:23-33). Romanism teaches the opposite, showing once again that it is an apostate religion and not the church of God -the body of Christ.
So Paul wasn't qualified to be a Bishop? These same verses in Timothy say a Bishop should have believing children. If either a man or his wife is physically unable to have children, is he unqualified to be a Bishop?

[Amazing Rando]

For sure- it's not in God's design that every single one of us gets married.

[NonTrinitarian]

Paul said-"But I wish all men were as I myself am...Now I say to the unmarried persons and to the widows, it is well for them that they remain as I am...Are you loosed from a wife? Stop seeking a wife...Indeed I want you to be free from anxiety. The unmarried man is anxious for the Lord, how he may gain the Lord's approval...If anyone stands settled in his heart, having no necessity, but has authority over his own will and has made this decision in his heart, to keep his own virginity, he will do well." 1 Cor 7:7-38

So Paul wishes everyone was unmarried, just as he was. Does that mean he wishes no one was a Bishop? Of course not. I wonder where he got this crazy idea about it being better to not marry?

"Not all men make room for the saying (about not marrying), but only those who have the gift. For there are eunuchs that were born such from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs that were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs that have made themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of the heavens. Let him that can make room for it make room for it."-Matt 19:11,12

And Jesus did make room for it. Certainly he was qualified to be a Bishop.

Now the scriptures don't teach that a priest must be celibate, as is obvious from Paul's letter to Timothy, but this same verse does NOT mean the priest MUST be married any more than it means they must have children. Jesus and Paul would hardly encourage people to remain single and then tell them they're not qualified to be bishops because they did what was suggested they do.

[themuzicman]

1 Tim 3 is literally translated "a one woman (or wife) man." In that case, it IS a mandate of marriage.

Michael

[NonTrinitarian]

1 Tim 3 is literally translated "a one woman (or wife) man." In that case, it IS a mandate of marriage.

Michael
And are you proposing that this man have more than one child too in order to be qualified to serve? These verses say he must have believing "children", not child, which means he should have at least two. Such reasoning totally ignores the words of Jesus and Paul elsewhere.

[nomad]

is the suggestion we should not seek to emulate jesus in *all* things? after all, if we were to follow his example (which supersedes paul), he wasn't married.

we may see the 'bad fruits of celibacy' now, but that ignores the bad fruits of corruption where people bought and sold bishoprics and parishes so they could pass them on to their children feudally. a celibate priest has no one to pass anything on to, and therefore (hopefully) no motivation to hoard up titles and land to pass on. i do not know the actual reason for it, but i would imagine that side effects of marriage cause just as many problems as side effects of singleness.

[themuzicman]

Gee, if I don't have any kids, then they are kept under control fairly well, aren't they...

This second portion describes how his kids should treat him, but not a mandate that he have them. Verse 2, on the other hand, is worded to specifically require a wife.

Michael

[NonTrinitarian]

Gee, if I don't have any kids, then they are kept under control fairly well, aren't they...

This second portion describes how his kids should treat him, but not a mandate that he have them. Verse 2, on the other hand, is worded to specifically require a wife.

Michael
"Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect."

Now which one of these are optional? You're nit picking on what you want to accept as a requirement and what you do not want to accept. And how does the literal wording support your contention?
"the husband of but one wife" versus
"a one woman (or wife) man"

What's the difference? Nothing. In fact, the literal wording is actually damaging to your position. It doesn't say the man must have a wife, it says ONE wife. Otherwise it would just say the man should be a husband or be married or have a wife. But Paul said none of the above. He intentionally said he would have ONE wife. Obvoiusly he was referring to polygamy.

And a similar account in Titus says this:
"a husband of ONE wife, HAVING believing children that are not unruly." Titus 1:6

How does the wording here say he MUST have a wife but he doesn't necessarily have to have believing children? "Having" doesn't just apply to the word "believing", it belongs to the phrase "believing children".

And this ignores the fact that both Paul and Jesus said they prefer we not marry, though there is nothing wrong if we do. How do you account for that? How do you account for the fact that Paul said he too was a bishop and yet he was not married? Was Paul breaking his own rule?

[themuzicman]

Paul wasn't an elder. These qualifications are for those who wish to lead the local church.

The most interesting thing about the 1 Tim 3:2 construction is that the word that literally means "one" is used. I realize you probably don't get into greek too much, but that is VERY unusual, and VERY specific. It's not merely a man who has less than two wifes, but literally and exactly ONE wife.

There is no numerical reference in the number of children, but only that they believe.

The remainder of the requirements speak of the character of the potential elder, and there are no exceptions to those.

Michael

[NonTrinitarian]

Paul wasn't an elder. These qualifications are for those who wish to lead the local church.

The most interesting thing about the 1 Tim 3:2 construction is that the word that literally means "one" is used. I realize you probably don't get into greek too much, but that is VERY unusual, and VERY specific. It's not merely a man who has less than two wifes, but literally and exactly ONE wife.
Yeah, I know. That's what I've been trying to get you to see. Paul didn't say "should be a husband", "should be married" or "should have a wife". He said "ONE wife", showing that it was not the MARRIAGE part that he was focusing on but that it was the fact that he would only have ONE wife, not TWO or THREE. And Titus 1:6 says he would have ONE wife (not a wife) and HAVE believing children. You take the HAVE for wife as a must but the HAVE for believing children as optional. Real consistent in your interpretation.

And you never have addressed the fact that both Paul and Jesus wished for everyone to be single. At least Jesus implied it and Paul came right out and said it. Now imagine the single men who followed this advice, based on their desire to do more for the Lord, and then be told they don't qualify to do more for the Lord. Your whole argument flies in the face of reason and the Greek found at these verses.

I think it's based on your hatred for the RCC. I don't agree with forced celibacy but trading one lie for another isn't good either. Paul and Jesus were not encouraging people to remain single and then telling them they can't serve the church.

And the double standard of saying "Have ONE wife" (there's that word ONE again, showing it was how many, not that he must be married) is a MUST but "having believing children" is not a must shows the depths you'll go to prove your point. Either you have two definitions for "have" or the wrong understanding on what Paul was saying. The truth is that have is optional in both instances. If you are married, you can only have "ONE" wife. If you have children, they must be believing.

And, if I can find a scripture that says Paul is an elder, will you recant your whole argument? Not saying I will, just curious if you will recant if I can find one.

[themuzicman]

Well, in Titus 1:6, "having" in that verse is a participle, so it doesn't designate action or requirement on the part of the elder, but modifies "children" to state that they have faith.

So, we might interpret it as "a one wife man, whose children who have faith." The requirement of a wife is inherenet in that it literally describes the man, whereas the "having" describes what children would need.

Likewise, 1 Tim 3 is talking about the quality of the man to be able to manage his household well, but doesn't mandate a number of children, or that they are required, unlike the description of the man as being a "one wife man."

In both cases, Paul is very specific about how many wives he should have. Not zero, not two or more, but One.

Michael

[NonTrinitarian]

Well, in Titus 1:6, "having" in that verse is a participle, so it doesn't designate action or requirement on the part of the elder, but modifies "children" to state that they have faith.

So, we might interpret it as "a one wife man, whose children who have faith." The requirement of a wife is inherenet in that it literally describes the man, whereas the "having" describes what children would need.

Likewise, 1 Tim 3 is talking about the quality of the man to be able to manage his household well, but doesn't mandate a number of children, or that they are required, unlike the description of the man as being a "one wife man."

In both cases, Paul is very specific about how many wives he should have. Not zero, not two or more, but One.

Michael
Whatever Michael. You keep ignoring the rest of the scriptures and I'll move on to another subject.

[kofh2u]

Yeah, I know. That's what I've been trying to get you to see. Paul didn't say "should be a husband", "should be married" or "should have a wife". He said "ONE wife", showing that it was not the MARRIAGE part that he was focusing on but that it was the fact that he would only have ONE wife, not TWO or THREE. And Titus 1:6 says he would have ONE wife (not a wife) and HAVE believing children. You take the HAVE for wife as a must but the HAVE for believing children as optional. Real consistent in your interpretation.

And you never have addressed the fact that both Paul and Jesus wished for everyone to be single. At least Jesus implied it and Paul came right out and said it. Now imagine the single men who followed this advice, based on their desire to do more for the Lord, and then be told they don't qualify to do more for the Lord. Your whole argument flies in the face of reason and the Greek found at these verses.

I think it's based on your hatred for the RCC. I don't agree with forced celibacy but trading one lie for another isn't good either. Paul and Jesus were not encouraging people to remain single and then telling them they can't serve the church.

And the double standard of saying "Have ONE wife" (there's that word ONE again, showing it was how many, not that he must be married) is a MUST but "having believing children" is not a must shows the depths you'll go to prove your point. Either you have two definitions for "have" or the wrong understanding on what Paul was saying. The truth is that have is optional in both instances. If you are married, you can only have "ONE" wife. If you have children, they must be believing.

And, if I can find a scripture that says Paul is an elder, will you recant your whole argument? Not saying I will, just curious if you will recant if I can find one.


What makes these concepts confusing is the paradigm from which you view the scropture.

That marriage, as an institution, long preceeded even Moses does not clue you to the possibility that Jesus spoke against this institution. Not against a sexual relationship without the social contract of marriage. You can not entertain this because you hlod Matrimony in a sacramental place in your mind, regardless that it has not changed since Noah and Jesus disparaged membership in it.

By such faulty thinking you end with celibracy, the denial of sexual relationship, instead of a fresh look at an evil, now homo sesual institution. You will defend that institution, excuse it, bow down to it, even suggest tgat Jesus would agree with you.

Rev. 17:4 And the womaan institutionalized process of taking one another in marriage, was arrayed in the sacramental colors of religion, purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a cup in her hand by which to symbolize the sacramental place in the order of things, full of abominations and filthiness of her process of courtship:

[mandolin]

I have nothing against celibacy...except that I couldn't possibly do it :smile:

However, I do find it odd that the celibacy of popes idea didn't even come into existance until 873.
Perhaps Pope John VIII just couldn't get any chicks?? :huh:

[NonTrinitarian]

What makes these concepts confusing is the paradigm from which you view the scropture.

That marriage, as an institution, long preceeded even Moses does not clue you to the possibility that Jesus spoke against this institution. Not against a sexual relationship without the social contract of marriage. You can not entertain this because you hlod Matrimony in a sacramental place in your mind, regardless that it has not changed since Noah and Jesus disparaged membership in it.

By such faulty thinking you end with celibracy, the denial of sexual relationship, instead of a fresh look at an evil, now homo sesual institution. You will defend that institution, excuse it, bow down to it, even suggest tgat Jesus would agree with you.

Rev. 17:4 And the womaan institutionalized process of taking one another in marriage, was arrayed in the sacramental colors of religion, purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a cup in her hand by which to symbolize the sacramental place in the order of things, full of abominations and filthiness of her process of courtship:
You know Kohf2u, I often find myself asking, "What the heck is this guy talking about?" But I let it slide because I assume you are too deep into philosophy to understand common language. But I have to say something here.

First, you will note that I did NOT support the Catholic doctrine of celibacy. Go back and read my posts if this fact somehow skipped you. Secondly, I am married myself and recognize that marriage is a valid and important part of God's arrangement. All I was arguing is that marriage is NOT a requirement to be an elder anymore than having children is. Both Paul and, more importantly Jesus, said singleness was a gift but that it was not required and that a person would not sin if he did marry. Neither one suggests A.) That marriage was wrong in order to be a priest or B.) That marriage was required in order to be a priest. As you can see from above, Michael ignored every question on what Paul and Jesus said about singleness and instead stubbornly sticks to his interpretation that "have" only means "have" when it suits him. I am merely pointing out his inconsitencies and ignorance of many other scriptures.

Now what are you talking about? And say it without your philosophical ideas.

[Jude3b]

Peter qualified to be a bishop. He was married to one wife. See Matt. 8:14, Luke 4:38, I Cor. 9:5).

Romanism fulfilled prophecies about itself: "...forbidding to marry" (I Tim 4:3).

It truly is an apostate religion and not the church of God - the Body of Christ!

[Amazing Rando]

Peter qualified to be a bishop. He was married to one wife. See Matt. 8:14, Luke 4:38, I Cor. 9:5).

Romanism fulfilled prophecies about itself: "...forbidding to marry" (I Tim 4:3).

It truly is an apostate religion and not the church of God - the Body of Christ!

Yeah, that is kinda ironic that Catholic priests can't be married while their very first "pope" was married.

[brother vinny]

Am I the only one here clever enough to see the difference between a prohibition against marriage (which is forbidden by Scripture) and a discipline which includes the voluntary giving of oneself to a life of celibacy?

I mean, if I were a flaming anti-Catholic, full of bitterness and vitriol, then maybe I could see then how the nuances would be lost on me. But then, if I were a flaming anti-Catholic, I'd probably find a theology board that would allow me to troll to my heart's content, posting thread after hate-filled thread filled with half-truths and accusations.

You know. Nothing like this one. :ahem:

[Amazing Rando]

Am I the only one here clever enough to see the difference between a prohibition against marriage (which is forbidden by Scripture) and a discipline which includes the voluntary giving of oneself to a life of celibacy?

Well, to be fair, in the RCC, it's not voluntary. If one wishes to be a priest, one must not marry. That is a prohibition, and it's unscriptural. That said, I can totallty understand why someone would voluntarily give up marriage in order to better serve the Lord. Making it an absolute prohibition for the clergy does seem a tad legalistic.

I mean, if I were a flaming anti-Catholic, full of bitterness and vitriol, then maybe I could see then how the nuances would be lost on me. But then, if I were a flaming anti-Catholic, I'd probably find a theology board that would allow me to troll to my heart's content, posting thread after hate-filled thread filled with half-truths and accusations.

You know. Nothing like this one. :ahem:

:rofl:

[Pilgrim]

Yeah, that is kinda ironic that Catholic priests can't be married while their very first "pope" was married.
That's not irony, it's contradiction. Maybe even paradox, but not irony.

[rocketman]

Several things, and I'm not sure if they've been brought up yet or not, so I'm going to say them anyways.

1. Whether Peter was married or not is beside the point...Peter was still celibate after becoming a bishop. (I don't know the exact reference here, but if I can find it, I will show you) Also, it is important to note that you do not have to be a cardinal to be Pope...there was an instance where a hermit became Pope Celestine V in 1294, although he stepped down because he felt he could not handle administrating the church's affairs (it's hard to go from isolation to the head of European society, eh?)

2. Yes, there were married priests in the early church. These priests also could not have sexual relations have a few days before saying Mass (a practice called continence) and many of these priests who were married were also chaste. It is also important to note that priests who became priests first, did not marry, and that those who were married before becoming priests minimally followed the continence law, and many were chaste on top of that.

3. The practice of unmarried clergy is a discipline, meaning it could possibly change (although it is highly, HIGHLY unlikely at this time that it will.). Its is not a doctrine or dogma.

4. There are indeed some married priests in the Church today. These occur in extenuating circumstances of the Latin Rite, and Byzntine Rite Catholics do have married priests. An extenuating circumstance within the Latin Rite is one such as a priest I know in San Antonio who is married and has a kid (who serves as an altar boy at Mass). He was the minister at a High Anglican church there, and the whole congregation converted en masse to Catholicism some time back. He was granted a dispensation to become a priest and maintain his position as pastor of the Church and be married.

As I noted above, the Byzantine Rite does not have as many restrictions on married clergy (as it is based from Eastern Orthodox tradition).

5. Why does the church not allow priests in the Latin Rite to marry? One, being married creates a temptation for priests to break the continence/chastity laws, which were already in place. By not allowing priests to marry, this takes away said temptation. Two, there was an issue from the early Middle Ages (before Pope Gregory came along), and that was nepotism (the favoring of one's children to appointment in high office or other favors). By not allowing priests and bishops to have children, nepotism gets cut down drastically.

[Jude3b]

Peter was married and his wife accompanied him on his missionary journeys. The same is true of the other apostles, and of the brothers of Jesus. Paul wrote: "Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"

Rome claims she never changes. But the popes are all single men. Peter was married.

Obviously Paul and Peter were not Roman Catholics! "The bishop should be the husband of one wife... one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection.." (I Tim. 3:2,4)

[mandolin]

Are you seriously such a catholic-hater that you condemn their celibacy?

Read 1 corinthians 7...it's not like not getting married is a sin. This is absurd.

Paul says not getting married is actually "better", because it allows one to focus on God and not the woman back home. While marriage isn't bad, what is wrong with an institution making sure that it's leaders are capable of completely focusing on God the way Paul perscribes?

[Jude3b]

God said, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." Romanism forbids its priests and nuns and bishops and cardinals and popes from being married. Jesus did not command that, only Rome - the anti-Christ commands it.

[rocketman]

God said, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." Romanism forbids its priests and nuns and bishops and cardinals and popes from being married. Jesus did not command that, only Rome - the anti-Christ commands it.

Jude, go read Corinthians. Paul encourages all to be chaste but knows that not all can handle such...thus those who cannot handle it should be married, such that they do not fall to sin such as fornication or adultery.

[mandolin]

grr...
verily I sayest unto thee dudes...read 1 corinthians 7 (particularly verse 8)

Paul was not married...paul said it's better to not be married...

Also, about your "rebuttal"
Seriously...have you ever heard of simple hermeneutics? "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" was a command to Noah...because there were no people on earth!

with this all in mind, i beg of you to answer my previous question...

What is wrong with an institution making sure that it's leaders are capable of completely focusing on God the way Paul perscribes? :huh:

[sprky777]

with this all in mind, i beg of you to answer my previous question...

What is wrong with an institution making sure that it's leaders are capable of completely focusing on God the way Paul perscribes? :huh:
Because some may be driven so mad with unsatisfied desire that they seek the most available, easily attained object to fulfill their needs. Innocent young alterboys. These young boys look up to these 'celibate' men as leaders and mentors. Someone they can trust. They are taken advantage of and keep these actions secret because of guilt and fear of repercussions.

If the RCC would just allow those that choose to be celebate do so and those that should marry rather than burn in desire do so also.

I expect that those priests that are victemizing young boys have alot of distractions keeping them from focusing on serving God.

[rocketman]

Not allowing priests to marry does not cause pedophilia. There are several documented cases in which a pedophile is married. In fact, it's often called something else...parent-child sexual abuse. Just because one is married or not does not mean one is going to have an increase in pedophilia. That is just plain stupid. I'm not married...the church does not let me have sex...does that mean I have a better chance at becoming a pedophile in the near future? I know a 65 year old who's never married...should I tell the kids in his neighborhood to watch out for him? Of course not! Pedophilia is a grave disorder that some people have regardless of their sexual life. The problem is, some people with homosexual or pedophilic thoughts go to the priesthood because they think that since you have to be chaste, it will keep them from sin. But it doesn't...they just commit a worse sin. The real problem is, these people did not have a true calling to enter the priesthood anyways; they mistook their disorder for one, and no one caught them and told them NOT to become priests.

But saying that forced celibacy leads to pedophilia is as ludicrous as saying forced chastity by church law for me is going to turn me into a homosexual pedophile. It's a just plain stupid argument.

If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at the American bishops for trying to cover it up, and get mad with the seminaries for not catching these guys when they were seminarians. But dob't get mad at the celibate priest law. That makes no sense.

Now I have to go take a physics test. Later...

[Jude3b]

grr...
verily I sayest unto thee dudes...read 1 corinthians 7 (particularly verse 8)

Paul was not married...paul said it's better to not be married...

Also, about your "rebuttal"
Seriously...have you ever heard of simple hermeneutics? "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" was a command to Noah...because there were no people on earth!

with this all in mind, i beg of you to answer my previous question...

What is wrong with an institution making sure that it's leaders are capable of completely focusing on God the way Paul perscribes? :huh:

If Roman priests were as celibate as Romanism commands we would not see the thousands of pedophile child abuse cases and the pedophilia and homosexuality in the Priesthood.

But I still blame Rome for setting up this unbiblical and unnatural state of affairs that they expect priests and nuns to live under. The unnatural asceticism is warned of by Paul: ".... forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats" (I Tim. 4:3);

Romes bishops are not qualified to be bishops in the true church of God - the Body of Christ. They can only serve in Romanism. The bishop therefore must be without reproach (not a pedophile, not a homosexual), the husband of one wife" (I Tim. 3:2)

[NonTrinitarian]

If Roman priests were as celibate as Romanism commands we would not see the thousands of pedophile child abuse cases and the pedophilia and homosexuality in the Priesthood.

But I still blame Rome for setting up this unbiblical and unnatural state of affairs that they expect priests and nuns to live under. The unnatural asceticism is warned of by Paul: ".... forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats" (I Tim. 4:3);

Romes bishops are not qualified to be bishops in the true church of God - the Body of Christ. They can only serve in Romanism. The bishop therefore must be without reproach (not a pedophile, not a homosexual), the husband of one wife" (I Tim. 3:2)
And have believing children.

[themuzicman]

And children having faith.

[rocketman]

I notice that Jude has side-stepped my post...why would that be, Jude? I mean, since the Church does not let me have sex because I'm single, I MUST be prone to pedophilia...yep, I'm a college-aged student at a liberal, secular university, and my hormones are raging, but because I can't get any, I'm channeling all this sexual frustration inwards and it will manifest itself as pedophilia in a couple years...

...and it also makes sense that my mom is from planet Zortok.

[NonTrinitarian]

And children having faith.
which is the same thing as saying:

And have believing children.

[romepunk]

If Roman priests were as celibate as Romanism commands we would not see the thousands of pedophile child abuse cases and the pedophilia and homosexuality in the Priesthood.

But I still blame Rome for setting up this unbiblical and unnatural state of affairs that they expect priests and nuns to live under. The unnatural asceticism is warned of by Paul: ".... forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats" (I Tim. 4:3);Surely you don't think celibacy causes homesexuality and pedophilia. I, for one, think that the reason there's such a disproportionate number of these people in the priesthood is because it's the perfect hideout for a man unwilling to "come out of the closet" to his family and friends about his disordered affections. Unless your a priest, Mom's going to start wondering why your 35 years old and never been in a relationship with a woman.

As for the "unnatural ascetism" bit, are you truly serious. Does the "unnatural asceticism" equate to perversion? If so were Jesus and St. Paul perverts under this definition?

Your brother in Christ,
romepunk

[mandolin]

To say celibacy and abstinance causes pedophilia is like saying that fasting causes gluttony.

Celibacy is basically so that one can truly devote one's life to God. No worries about the old lady back home. Just you, God, and your church body.
Devotion to god causes pedophilia??
This logic astounds me :huh:

[Amazing Rando]

Good replies romepunk and mandolin, both of you.

[sprky777]

Surely you don't think celibacy causes homesexuality and pedophilia. I, for one, think that the reason there's such a disproportionate number of these people in the priesthood is because it's the perfect hideout for a man unwilling to "come out of the closet" to his family and friends about his disordered affections

I agree with you that it doesn't CAUSE those behaviors, but if the predisposition exists then celibacy in an environment frequently giving opportunities to be alone with young men exacerbates the problem.

If a man knew he had such desires then he should remove himself from situations allowing solitary time with potential sexual targets.

The same applies to pedophiles who choose teaching as a career. Why put themselves into such temptation? If they really want to teach then move up to college level education. If a man knows he has a desire for young boys then find a career FAR from young boys, don't become a scout master. Or at least work in such a public environment that there are no opportunities for misbehavior.

These men that have abused children, they know what they have done yet they remain in such a position? If they truely repented of their actions then they would quietly remove themselves. Of course, the honorable way would be to publicly repent, begging for forgiveness, before leaving. Instead, they wait until there is so much legal pressure against them that they must settle or lose in court before they even acknowledge their actions. Would GOD forgive a sinner that doesn't even have remorse?

[NonTrinitarian]

To say celibacy and abstinance causes pedophilia is like saying that fasting causes gluttony.

Celibacy is basically so that one can truly devote one's life to God. No worries about the old lady back home. Just you, God, and your church body.
Devotion to god causes pedophilia??
This logic astounds me :huh:
I think the rational behind RCC celibacy is valid, particularly since the apostle Paul said he wished ALL would be celibate. Even Jesus appears to have recommended it. However, you will note that BOTH Jesus and Paul said it was up to the individual PERSON to make that determination and did not require it in order to be a priest.

True, the RCC does not have celibacy as a "dogma" and it does allow some married priests, but this church "discipline" goes flatly against the 1st century practice. Does it matter? Well, I'm not going to get into the sola scripture debate but we have to note that there seems to be a higher rate of pedophiles in the RCC than in other religions, though ALL religions have them. Why does the RCC have a higher rate than everyone else? Quite possibly because of their celibacy rule.

[rocketman]

2 things...

1. Sparky, you are tright about them not getting into the priesthood...and the CCC also has a section saying that people with sexual disorders should not be allowed to be priests. The problem is, some of these people took it as a calling to the priesthood, which it obviously wasn't, and the seminariaies dod not catch them.

2. The rate of pedophilic/sexually abusive priests ito the total number of priests is about the same as the population at large (I think it may be slightly lower, but not a real statistical difference.) Does this excuse it? Of course not. As priests they should be held to a much higher standard, and even one is too many. Just showing that there are not a disproportionate number of these people in the priesthood.

[themuzicman]

which is the same thing as saying:

And have believing children.

No, it means that if they have children, they must believe. The having isn't a requirement of the elder, but of the child.

Michael

[themuzicman]

The real problem with sexual abuse among priests wasn't that there were some, but that the RCC, rather than doing the right thing in turning them over to the authorities for prosecution and removing them from ministry, covered up the abuse, moved the priest into another position where he could abuse other children, thus making a church a coconspirator in the priest's further abuses.

In other words, the reputation of the church was more important than the safety of Catholic children.

Michael

[elysian]

Surely you don't think celibacy causes homesexuality and pedophilia. I, for one, think that the reason there's such a disproportionate number of these people in the priesthood is because it's the perfect hideout for a man unwilling to "come out of the closet" to his family and friends about his disordered affections. Unless your a priest, Mom's going to start wondering why your 35 years old and never been in a relationship with a woman.

True celibacy is a call to forgo sexual relations not to find a comfortable closet. Martin Luther observed the same problem in 1530 that we see today in seminaries and rectories, an underground gay culture that is perhaps exacerbated by the "cover of sanctity." The reality is if you have sworn off candy, the most difficult place to live is the candy store. I cannot imagine an environment more difficult for a gay man trying to remain chaste than a seminary or rectory. He's surrounded by men, some of whom may be in positions of power and do not take rejection lightly. I'm not implying that chastity is impossible in such a situation but it is made more difficult when one is surrounded by temptation.

"For no one has such little love and desire for chastity as precisely those who under cover of great sanctity avoid marriage and either indulge openly and shamelessly in fornication or secretly carry on in even worse fashion, in ways one does dare not mention, has all too often come to light." (Luther's Large Catechism, from his explanation of the Sixth Commandment, emphasis mine.)

http://www.palaceofreason.com/CurrentEvents/a_crisis_of_faith.html

There are people in ministry who are called to celibacy for the same reasons as Jesus and Paul, to devote themselves fully to God. However the call to celibacy is not the norm, nor should a person be considered "inferior" in their ministry if they are not called to celibacy. God works through people in families as well as through single people.

[NonTrinitarian]

No, it means that if they have children, they must believe. The having isn't a requirement of the elder, but of the child.

Michael
And I really agree with you, but you have a double standard:

"6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient"

The Greek here does not make a wife mandatory anymore than it makes children mandatory.

If Paul was addressing that the man must be married, he would have said "an elder must be a husband" or "an elder must be married". Instead he said that he would only have "one wife." The "one" is damaging to your position. It shows Paul was dealing with polygamy, not marriage.

Furthermore, Paul wished that ALL men were single. Jesus said we should try to make room for singleness. Paul even tries to reason with them on why it's in their best interest to remain single. Are you really saying that Paul wished all men were single and that those that do stay single in an effort to follow the counsel of Paul and Jesus are now not qualified to be elders?

That's ridiculous reasoning. It's like ignoring all of the verses that show Peter to be a good man and insisting he's Satan because Jesus called him that. Your whole reasoning flies in the face of what Paul and Jesus said on singleness.

Here's what I've deduced from your logic:
1.) Must have a wife because Paul said you should have but one wife
2.) Even though the next words off the pen are "and children having belief", that's not a real requirement. (Note: it doesn't say 'if you hve children, they must be believers')
3.) Those who ignore Paul and Jesus' recommendation (AND EXAMPLE) are rewarded with authority in the congregation
4.) Those who heed Paul and Jesus' recommendation are turned away as unqualified to serve in the congregation. Apparenlty they have too much time to focus on the Lord in order to make good elders.
5.) You never have explained why you think being married was a requirement for an elder.

In gist, your argument is 'You can do what the Lord asks you to do but if you do you can't serve in the Church.'

[themuzicman]

My logic arises out of the greek grammar present, here. Literally translated, an elder must be a "one wife man." It is literally a posessive form, and has the unusual construction of naming the specific number of women.

The construction referring to children, on the other hand, bears no requirement that children belong to the husband, but that the children (if he has any) must have faith. It is sufficiently detached from the elder that we cannot, in the greek, read a requirement, here, especially in light of the strikingly differently grammatical forms used.

I know you don't like it, but that's life.

As for "why", Paul states very clearly that he must manage his household well. If he can't manage his household, how can we expect him to manage the church?

Michael

[NonTrinitarian]

My logic arises out of the greek grammar present, here. Literally translated, an elder must be a "one wife man." It is literally a posessive form, and has the unusual construction of naming the specific number of women.

The construction referring to children, on the other hand, bears no requirement that children belong to the husband, but that the children (if he has any) must have faith. It is sufficiently detached from the elder that we cannot, in the greek, read a requirement, here, especially in light of the strikingly differently grammatical forms used.

I know you don't like it, but that's life.

As for "why", Paul states very clearly that he must manage his household well. If he can't manage his household, how can we expect him to manage the church?

Michael
The grammar does not say what you are reading into it. It's your assertion that it means that and I doubt many Greek grammarians would support your position. In fact, I know most do not because churches do let single men serve as elders. So all you have is your opinion on grammar and an inconsistent reading on what's required.

Furthermore, you continue to ignore Paul and Jesus' wish that we all remain single. It's your failure to consider the whole NT that leads you to your incorrect conclusion. Go back and see points 3 and 4 in my last post.

And your reason for "why" is contradictory. The managing his household clause comes AFTER he discuss the man's having believing children in verse 5, not his being a husband of one wife in verse 2. Thus, the relating of how well he manages his household to how well he will manage the congregation is based on how he manages his children, not his wife. If anything, this only strengthens the position of why he should have children, if I truly felt it was a requirement.

So I raise the question again, why do you think Paul said the man MUST be married? I can explain the logic behind every other requirement listed in these verses except that one. And so far you have not effectively answered it. In fact, your answer actually suggests that he should have children as that is how we could tell if he can manage the congregation.

[themuzicman]

Seeing as the man is the head of the woman, his leadership of her would qualify as "managing his household well." You may refer to Eph 5:24 and following for a lesson on headship in the family. If you want more references, just ask.

As for Paul's admonition (and Christ's) that we remain single, 1 TImothy 3 doesnt' apply to every ministry position, or even position of leadership in a given ministry. It refers specifically to those who have authority over the local church. Today many churches call it "The board" or "The board of elders," so most people in ministry (and IMHO especially those who are itinerant, as the disciples were) would be best served in being single, so they are not hampered by the responsibilities of spouse and family.

I realize that some churches allow single men. Obviously, they're ignoring this command, aren't they....

Michael

[NonTrinitarian]

Seeing as the man is the head of the woman, his leadership of her would qualify as "managing his household well." You may refer to Eph 5:24 and following for a lesson on headship in the family. If you want more references, just ask.
Why? You just ignore context anyway. Open your Bible to 1 Tim 3 and read verses 1-5. Does the comment about the elder's ability to manage the congregation follow the "one wife" clause in verse 2 or the "children behaving obediently" clause in verse 5? We both know the answer. So his ability to manage the church is based on his believing children. The elder's wife doesn't even have to be a believer (see 1 Cor 7) but his children do. Thus, you have failed to answer why you think the elders are required to be married.

As for Paul's admonition (and Christ's) that we remain single, 1 TImothy 3 doesnt' apply to every ministry position, or even position of leadership in a given ministry. It refers specifically to those who have authority over the local church. Today many churches call it "The board" or "The board of elders," so most people in ministry (and IMHO especially those who are itinerant, as the disciples were) would be best served in being single, so they are not hampered by the responsibilities of spouse and family.
Deacons are also supposed to be married, I assume? Note 1 tim 3:12

"For deacons are to be husbands of one wife, presiding in a fine manner over their children."

No clause here about "believing children", which seems to be your scapegoat. It just says they should have "one wife" and preside over their children. You can't preside over your children if you don't have them!

I realize that some churches allow single men. Obviously, they're ignoring this command, aren't they....Michael
Ehh, your "command" is based on your assertion, which comes unqualified, that the greek grammar supports your point. My point in mentioning the churches is that they have people with more credentials behind their names than you do on Greek and they aren't going around saying the Greek requires this. You are trying to say the 'Greek says this...' and I'll I am saying is show some scholarly support to back it up.

I think 90% of the scholarship would say it refers to polygamy.

[themuzicman]

Well, once again, you're taking the English translation and trying to be technical with the language, rather than going back to the greek for the technicalities.

We have the same grammatical construction with believing children as we do with managing children. Clearly they were intended to be parallel.

And now you're making unqualified appeals to some anonymous scholarship, without any basis whatsoever! Do you do the things you command others to do?

I realize that there are some denominations who write this off in various ways. But that doesn't change what the text says, or the grammar behind it.

So, please demonstrate that 90 percent the scholarship thinks that this refers to polygamy. Certainly you wouldn't want to make an unqualified assertion.. would you?

... A link, a poll, a study.. maybe?

Michael

[NonTrinitarian]

Well, once again, you're taking the English translation and trying to be technical with the language, rather than going back to the greek for the technicalities.

We have the same grammatical construction with believing children as we do with managing children. Clearly they were intended to be parallel.

And now you're making unqualified appeals to some anonymous scholarship, without any basis whatsoever! Do you do the things you command others to do?

I realize that there are some denominations who write this off in various ways. But that doesn't change what the text says, or the grammar behind it.

So, please demonstrate that 90 percent the scholarship thinks that this refers to polygamy. Certainly you wouldn't want to make an unqualified assertion.. would you?

... A link, a poll, a study.. maybe?

Michael
Actually you made the unqualified assertion. There's nothing in the Greek that says you MUST have children but you are not required to have children. And the argument you have been so heavily relying on about 'believing' children doesn't hold up under the requirements for deacons as it just says you would have children.

We could do a "poll" at TWeb but how many Greek scholars are here? And you don't have to prove to me 10% of scholars support your stance. Offer one reference work by someone with a Phd behind his name that says 'grammatically this says you MUST be married'. Just one is all I'm asking for.

[themuzicman]

You're the one who made the unqualified and completely unsupported assertion. You back up your own claims!

Michael

[mandolin]

Ahh yes...
Now because a couple of pedophile priests exist, we condemn them all. A couple protestant pastors are gay...this means ALL protestant pastors are gay...clearly.

Must we condemn the RCC for creating pedophiles with abstinece, or should we simply judge the freako priests that do said actions??

I wonder what happenned to good old fashioned logic. :huh:
I miss it :frown:

[themuzicman]

They are condemned for enabling those priests to abuse children again and again, rather than removing them from the ministry and turning them over to the authorities.

[kofh2u]

Because some may be driven so mad with unsatisfied desire that they seek the most available, easily attained object to fulfill their needs. Innocent young alterboys. These young boys look up to these 'celibate' men as leaders and mentors. Someone they can trust. They are taken advantage of and keep these actions secret because of guilt and fear of repercussions.

If the RCC would just allow those that choose to be celebate do so and those that should marry rather than burn in desire do so also.

I expect that those priests that are victemizing young boys have alot of distractions keeping them from focusing on serving God.

Do you think that the odds favor men entering and then find that they " burn in desire," and turn to pediphia,... or, that men who burn with desire for boys CHOOSE to enter an organization withh a number of protectiins for such intended behavior.

What are the odds that pediphiles tell one another to sign up for the priesthood?

What is the total number of problems like thus? (Not only worldwide,... but historically, since this organizatuon has offered accommodation for pediphiles for TWO CENTURIES)

Where are all the straight hinest Pruest in this? Have tgey been silenc3d? If the numbers were right, that 10% of tge priest, in this generation, are the "bad apples," then where is the indignation, the tarttle-taling, the exposures from within,... WHERE are the good pruests who have seen this from the inside?


What are the odds that a ranking authority of protection for pediphiles has long ago moved up the ladder, is and has long been in control, since they had every reason to protect themselves and those of their kind beneath them. With this additional interest, mutual to those in their "click," what's tge odds they they had subtle support and many supporters in the quest for upward mobility, OVER THE AGES.

What are the odds that the problem was unknown, or a minor problem, when it was left to the victims to expose this. And, these current victims are living in this rather open society, victims who in other times could not have come forward, would never have had the power to oppose these men?

Boy-man Love is an organization currently representing men interested in promoting this sodomy. These men are called "chicken pluckers" by the gay community. Whereas I am certain that most gay men would find oediphiliai vobjectionable, they must admit most gay men, including priests nit accused of pediphilia, would not necessarily find themselves willing to expose those men who are. Both are gaym desire/lusting for other men, merely a degree of tge age of their victim ir a meadure of the competence of willing consent.

What are tge odds that men with these strange preferences eoukd see this organization as a "God send", an organization workd-wide, transferring priests when caught in the act, above civil and criminal prosecution, protectec by a real "brothehood" to include even the straight honest priests. Especislly in former times when "outside" these crime could get you kilked?

What are tge odds tgat tgese verses from God mean what is said here?
'
Rev. 2:19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and
thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.

Rev. 2:20 Not withstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that "woman," Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, imbued supposedly with the spirit of our Lord, the Spirit of prophecy; thy tolerates this sexually deviant sect, which calleth herself a proclaimer of the doctrine of celibacy, to teach and to seduce my congregators to commit the fornication of pedophilia, and to eat, in their sodomies, the very things they assumeably sacrificed once to idols, the phallic symbolism of Ba'al and Ashtorah.

Rev. 2:21 And I gave this sect within the Universal Catholic Church
400 years to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

Rev. 2:22 Behold, I will cast her, the pedaphiles, into a bed, and them, their protectors, that commit adultery against their vows inthe Universal Church of Catholicism with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

Rev. 2:23 And I will kill her children, the priest of future generations, with Black Plague, and AIDS, and both civil and criminal prosecutions; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth reins of leaderdhip and the individual minds and psyches: and I will enlighten every one of you according to your behavior.

[mandolin]

I totally agree musicman...but since when was celibacy the problem??

[Jude3b]

I totally agree musicman...but since when was celibacy the problem??

"A bishop (Pastor) then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." (I Tim. 3:2).

[romepunk]

"A bishop (Pastor) then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." (I Tim. 3:2).How sad. Jesus, the universal pastor, is unqualified to be the pastor of his own church. Shh, nobody tell Jesus, he may be a little miffed.

[rocketman]

Don't forget Paul also...he apparently didn't live up to his own qualifications. Tell me again why the Church declared him a saint and he was made an Apostle? He couldn't hold his own teaching there....

[themuzicman]

How sad. Jesus, the universal pastor, is unqualified to be the pastor of his own church. Shh, nobody tell Jesus, he may be a little miffed.

Last I heard, Jesus wasn't an elder in a local church. :doh:

[brother vinny]

Last I heard, Jesus wasn't an elder in a local church. :doh:

We can infer from this that Jesus doesn't minister at whatever local church themuzicman is attending, can we not?

[Jude3b]

"A bishop (Pastor) then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." (I Tim. 3:2).

Is celibacy a sacrifice God requires of His servants, or it it another tradition of sinful religious men? The Bible declares:
"Marriage is honourable in all..." (Hebrews 13:4)

Do you know who "All" includes? Obviously not poor enslaved Roman Catholic priests and nuns!

[BibleMan]

I just read in the Sunday paper that the Roman Catholic religion had to pay out $3,000,000.00 to a single lady because of numerous rapes by a Roman Catholic priest starting when this lady was only 6 years old. Absolutely shocking. When I read that I wanted to puke with disgust. I can only imagine how it would feel to know that my own 6 year old daughter was raped. Horrible thought.

Couldn't this problem with rapists and pedophiles serving in the Roman Catholic priesthood be solved at least a little, if they would just allow priests and nuns to marry?


I'd like to see them get out of the Republican and Democratic parties too!

[Joe Gofish]

I just read in the Sunday paper that the Roman Catholic religion had to pay out $3,000,000.00 to a single lady because of numerous rapes by a Roman Catholic priest starting when this lady was only 6 years old. Absolutely shocking. When I read that I wanted to puke with disgust. I can only imagine how it would feel to know that my own 6 year old daughter was raped. Horrible thought.

Couldn't this problem with rapists and pedophiles serving in the Roman Catholic priesthood be solved at least a little, if they would just allow priests and nuns to marry?

tHIS IS WHAT jESUS HAD TO SAY ABOUT CELIBACY
Matt 19:12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were
born so; some, because they were made so by others; some,
because they have renounced marriage * for the sake of the
kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."
BTW I also had to puke about reading about Jimmy Sawaggart with prostitute on friday and then preaching his word on Sunday and back to the street the next Friday.
Was JImmy "CELIBACY" no, AND THE PRIEST WAS JUST wrong.

[BibleMan]

tHIS IS WHAT jESUS HAD TO SAY ABOUT CELIBACY
Matt 19:12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were
born so; some, because they were made so by others; some,
because they have renounced marriage * for the sake of the
kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."
BTW I also had to puke about reading about Jimmy Sawaggart with prostitute on friday and then preaching his word on Sunday and back to the street the next Friday.
Was JImmy "CELIBACY" no, AND THE PRIEST WAS JUST wrong.



Sorry to interrupt your debate here, but a "Priest" would be comparable to a Pastor, or to use the Biblical word "Overseer." This is an "office" in the "church." Single men really are not as qualified to be an "Overseer" in the local church. That is clearly shown in I Tim. 3:2a).

One difference that should be pointed out. There is no human "priesthood" established in the New Covenant anywhere in the New Testament. Roman Catholicism has created the "priesthood" and made requirements of its own, not found in the Bible, for their man made office.

Beyond that, one could say that if a "priest" holds himself out to be a Pastor/Bishop or Overseer he is probably violating the Word of God - if he is "Celibate!" That is not to say that a Pastor/Overseer who's wife passed away, would be disqualified from the church office.

"An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the HUSBAND of one wife..." (I Tim. 3:2a). Literally a "one woman man." This verse is not about marriage or divorce but the fact that the church elder must be moral and live in sexual purity with only one wife.

In that verse the Greek particle strees emphatically that this is absolutely necessary for church leaders.