Celibacy is superior, because you say so.

I don't see what's superior about celibacy. It may suit some people but not others. Even if it were true that "Celibacy is superior", if there is a big shortage of priests (i.e. celibate priests) in some places, a nonexistent celibate priest is not superior to a married priest who exists. Or would you prefer to have no priests in some places rather than married priests? Would you rather have Catholics deprived of having any priest just because the concept of married priests (already permissible in certain circumstances in the Catholic Church) somehow annoys you and people like you? Is that not extremely selfish?

If that were true, then why would it matter if they had one or two or three or more wives?

1 Timothy 3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

3 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife,

12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children, and their own houses.

I'm waiting on Pope Francis who I know will make the right decision.

Because a man who had more than one wife would be an adulterer...

No he wouldn't be an adulterer, not if he "put his wives away" and "lived a single celibate life". He would be an adulterer if he didn't remain celibate with more than one wife. So it's okay to have one wife, and not be celibate, that's the point.

I have no idea why you said any of that. You asked why it would matter if a man had more than one wife. It would matter because a man with more than one wife would be an adulterer and the writer wanted to exclude adulterers from being ordained. I am not dancing in circles with you.

The rule applies to serial, not simultaneous polygamy.

Up until 1983, if a man was a widower, and he remarried, and his second wife died, he could not be ordained. Whereas a man who had married but once could

This is the danger of prooftesting from scripture. You lack the context of tradition.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5066.htm

This thread is mostly a display of crass ignorance, but I thought I would at least clear up this one error

The clear and simple point is that according to the New Testament it's okay for a bishop or deacon to have a wife, and there are currently some married priests in the Catholic Church, so I don't see how more married priests, in circumstances where they are badly needed, can be much of a problem for any Catholic.


I agree, Amon.

A few points, some repetitive, then adieu.

1. "Putting away" certainly meant separation, and may, depending upon one's source, mean divorce.

2. The proposition being presented, that either we have married priests and amazon deacons or the faithful and potential faithful of Amazonia will go unshriven to their graves, is a false dichotomy. The actuality, as I understand it, is that there is a shortage of priests... not an absence. Many other logical fallacies come to mind. Such as .....

3. The proposition being presented, that the Bible presents evidence of married priests and amazon deacons, is a form of the logical fallacy of cherry picking, using the tool of Sola Scriptura. Even the briefest online research indicates that early priests were required to be single and celibate. And....

4. The proposition being presented is presented over and over, without regard to the counter arguments also presented. This is the logical fallacy of an argument by repetition (ad nauseam or ad infinitum) by which the speaker uses the same statements repeatedly with the hopes that the repetition will lead to persuasion.

5. The proposition that there should be amazon deacons boils down to women are as good as men. They are. They just don't get to be priests. Or deacons. A similar, secular drama is ongoing, and I await its introduction into this arena. If an amazon identifies as a man, and, after a lawsuit before a judge hostile to the Church, obtains a grant of imprimatur from said civil court, I am sure there will be an edict requiring to the Church to ordain zir.

Turn that question on yourself. How do you know they didn't???
I already asked you earlier on page 2:



Right now, that answer appears to be: No, you haven't. You don't know anything. You are ignorant on this topic, when there is plenty of actual history to be read out there.

If you'd quit throwing turds on the wall to see what sticks, and instead pick up a book and start reading, maybe then you'd be taken more seriously, and your arguments would make more sense. For now, all you're doing is --- like I said --- throwing turds on the wall.

PED is correct. This whole thread is ripe with ignorance, pretty much exclusively coming from your side, DD.

Why don't you go do your own research?

You keep talking like, "This is so stupid... the clear and simple point is [...]... The rule makes no sense.."

Of course none of it makes sense to you and people like you because you don't know HOW it came into being in the first place!

Go do your own research! I've already pointed you where to start!
[the canons that came out of Arles IV (524), Lyons (583), and Toledo III (589)

Are you lacking internet resources somehow? Are you incapable of doing your own research to get smart on this topic?

Honestly, you really need to do more reading and less posting.

Nothing I wrote is my opinion or my point of view. I invite you to read the following:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/ca ... ult-to-god

Perhaps I should be more clear that I was referring to divorced and remarried as was permitted by the law of Moses but which Christ condemned.

Here is a very well-written, well-researched article on the topic of priestly celibacy and continence:

http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/hi ... hurch.html

Here's just a small portion of the article, with emphasis added ---

Nicely done.

No, because the Church teaches that celibacy is superior.

Well, that's hardly enough reason to eschew Church Vat II.2 (Beta).

What most people --- like Denise Dee --- are very, VERY ignorant and confused about is the simple fact that, historically, while married clergy did exist, they were continent. They remained continent, primarily I'd say, by physically leaving their wives ... but the idea of leaving behind wife and family was a bit contradictory (if not hypocritical) to what marriage actually meant and was supposed to involve. So then there develops (for lack of a better term) the idea that they can live under the same roof, but must remain continent, and there was this whole background checking kind of thing that needed to be done to ensure there wasn't going to be any problems, so to speak, in maintaining that continence. But the Church, in its wisdom, knew that most folks can't keep their hands to themselves, and there'd be awful temptation to succumb to sexual desires by living under the same roof, and therefore, that whole issue is avoided by a celibate priesthood.

That's it in a nutshell.

But that's something the modern person --- catholic or not --- does not grasp. They think of 'married priest' as being no different than any protestant preacher with a wife, who continues to have kids just like any other normal married family would.

That is not the history of "married Catholic clergy." And that is not the history of the Church.

But hey... One need only look at Amoris laetitiae to realize that this current pontiff hardly cares about T-/tradition and the past, and the wisdom formed from that crucible.

Those clamoring to allow married priests because "there used to be married priests, so why not now?" ---- Ask them if they're willing to "go back to the way it was" ..... When they say YES, then remind them that the 'way it was' meant married, but continent, priests. Well, No, they don't want that, and that's not what they're actually asking for today.

Every day it seems the Catholic Faith becomes more and more protestant, and this is just one step among many towards furthering that goal.

EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

Respectfully, that's not true. Both Cardinal Sarah and Pope Francis are aware of those pushing change. Cardinal Sarah used the words 'ploys.' It is obvious to them. Those who don't know about the Catholic Church, those that follow the world and those that hate the Church are not that great in number, but with the internet, one voice can appear - appear - to be a lot. It's not. The secular world wants to erase faith and undermine the Church. The gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

Matthew 16:18

When you so freely say something which is obviously untrue, tango, then I cannot have much confidence that anything else you say is true. I don't trust people who are not concerned with truth. You said:

"What most people --- like Denise Dee --- are very, VERY ignorant and confused about is the simple fact that, historically, while married clergy did exist, they were continent."

But I never once commented or made any suggestion about whether or not married clergy "were continent". Yet that hasn't stopped you proclaiming that that's something I am "very, VERY ignorant and confused about", with absolutely nothing to support your claim.