[OLDCATH-L] Remarks on Celibacy Requirement

[Sam'l B]

On 02/12/2010 04:45 PM, Bill Leaming wrote:
> Have you actually read Mr. Davie's book Sam, or are you simply leaping
> to a conclusion without any basis in fact?

	I read the article +Marty posted -- I stand by my comment.

> http://www.illicitcelibacy.com/Infallibility.html

	Read enough of this to see it is horse-puckey, too -- Rome has never 
pretended that celibacy is a dogmatic issue, subject to infallibility. 
  It is a purely disciplinary issue, which could be changed by a Papal 
Motu Proprio at any time.

	The argument that Roman authority can be destroyed by this or that 
trifling grudge on the part of a polemicist is, again, 16th or 17th 
Century Protestant poppycock.

> He does pose some very interesting questions...

	Which?  Not the one below, for sure.

> "...celibacy is required only for Latin Rite (Roman) priests but has no
> effect on other Catholic priests under authority of Rome, such as
> Marionites, who have been allowed to marry since the time of Christ,

	Utterly untrue, as you might gather from talking to real, 
contemporary Byzantine Catholic priests in the U.S. -- who are NOT 
allowed to marry by fiat of the Roman Rite National Council of 
Bishops. To be married, they need to be transferred to Europe, get 
married, then transfer back to the U.S -- something much frowned on by 
the Roman Congregation for the clergy.

> and
> married Anglican priests who converted, becoming Catholic priests while
> retaining their wives and children.

	In the case of Anglican clergy who have swum the Tiber, Rome has been 
very explicit that none of the married ones will ever  become Bishops, 
and Anglican bishops who swim with their wives and kiddies are being 
received as _PRIESTS_ (and re-ordained).

	Further --  Orthodox _BISHOPS_ are, and have been, at least since the 
4th Century, required to be celibate.  Orthodox priests must have been 
married _BEFORE_ ordination to the Diaconate, and I suspect, cannot 
marry again if their wife dies.

 > Only Roman priests are forced to
> reject either the Sacrament of Matrimony or the Sacrament of Orders -
> Jesus infallibly allowed both."

	Where?   Chapter & Verse, please.

===============================================

	Understand, now, that I do not agree that celibacy is a necessary 
condition for the priesthood and the episcopacy.  Our Protestant 
brethren have shown, over the last 400 years or so, that  optional 
celibacy can be made to work quite successfully.

	I have speculated before, both LOUDLY and PUBLICLY that the probable 
reason for contemporary Roman resistance to the relaxation of the 
celibacy requirement is likely _FINANCIAL_ -- they would have to pay 
their clergy a living wage, and provide benefits for the wife and 
kiddies.  Ask your local local Roman how much his monthly stipend is!

	I stand by my prediction that it will be 25-50 years until Rome 
seriously takes up the question of clerical celibacy.  I also continue 
to LOUDLY reject Piffle, Poppycock, and Snotty-Protty arguments.

+Sam'l