JPII: Sexual balance and celibacy examinations

[Imran Siddiqui]

So, gimme some.

I gave you a few articles referencing those sources, both by Catholic priests.

Because many did not.
And some were overcomen by their desire

But it was so widespread. It wasn't just a few bad apples but everyone.

"first among equals among Cardinals"
No hierarchy?
Oh please...
The rulers nominated whom they wished,
true, but the rest is simply not true.
Really.
Do You even know what cardinals are?
Do You know what patriarchates are?

Yes, I do. And obviously, you've bought in Catholic propoganda hook, line, and sinker. After Constantine took Christianity and Theodosius made it state religion, the Emperor was the head of the church and directly elected by God. There was no heirarchy leading to the Pope, it lead to the King, who had the direct pathway to Christ.

Charlemagne, for example, called Church councils and made Church law. He regarded Leo II as his personal chaplain and even told Leo II that the King's business was to govern and defend the Church and its the Pope's duty to pray for it.

The laws of Ethelred in England said "A Christian king is Christ's deputy among the Christian people and he must avenge with utmost diligence offenses against Christ". It was the KING who was Christ's deputy, not the Pope.

For more stuff, see "Law and Revolution" by Harold Berman.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So, gimme some.

I gave you a few articles referencing those sources, both by Catholic priests.

I hoped for some proofs, not modern surmisions

But it was so widespread. It wasn't just a few bad apples but everyone.

not everyone. And I didn't claim that these were just a few bad apples. If it was so, it would have been easy.

Yes, I do. And obviously, you've bought in Catholic propoganda hook, line, and sinker. After Constantine took Christianity and Theodosius made it state religion, the Emperor was the head of the church and directly elected by God. There was no heirarchy leading to the Pope, it lead to the King, who had the direct pathway to Christ.

Charlemagne, for example, called Church councils and made Church law. He regarded Leo II as his personal chaplain and even told Leo II that the King's business was to govern and defend the Church and its the Pope's duty to pray for it.

The laws of Ethelred in England said "A Christian king is Christ's deputy among the Christian people and he must avenge with utmost diligence offenses against Christ". It was the KING who was Christ's deputy, not the Pope.

For more stuff, see "Law and Revolution" by Harold Berman.

You're just making bad conclusions out of true information.
The hierarchy of the church, with patriarchs as their leaders, never ceased to exist, bah, it was finally established on synnodes which were, as You say, called by emperors. Emperors were powerfull figures within the church, but aside from the hierarchy.
Do You really believe that papacy is only invention of gregorian reforms? That it looked like dozens of post-reformation Englands?

[Plan Austral]

Origen castrated himself, he was an heretic, but he is anyway very respected as an early church writer.

[Heresson]

Yeah, I think He was not the only one.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Heresson

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Also in his letters to Timothy, Paulus (or whoever wrote this Epistle) allows Deacons and Bishops to be married once:

1. Timothy 3:2
It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher

1. Timothy 3:12
Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children and their own houses.

"one wife" is the church.

If you see these sentences alone,
you might come this conclusion,
that wife might be "the church"

But the letter to Timothy goes on:

3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

3:5 For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

These sentences make a clear distinction between the own household of the bishop (and his own children, he is supposed to have) and the church.

Most Theologist AFAIK interpret these part of the epistle as a condemnation of polygamy,
meaning that Paulus (or whoever wrote the epistle) says that bishops and deacons shouldn´t be men who have been married to several women (or who got divorced and then again been married) but only once.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


The early Christian church allowed married priests for centuries. Celibacy for the clergy came later.

And, just a personal observation as a lifelong Catholic: the priests I've known have always been heavy drinkers, and I can't help but think that their alcoholism and their unnatural sexual repression weren't merely coincidental.

For me heavy alchohol use and celibacy have always been mutually exclusive.

[Sikander]

Re: Re: JPII: Sexual balance and celibacy examinations

Originally posted by bfg9000


Better yet, just let them date women. Repressed sexuality emerges in all sorts of nasty ways. Preists succombing to pedophilia is just one of the more public displays of this. Men were not meant to be celibate. Mens sex drives require them to mate constantly.. Women are a different story. That's why you never hear of any pedophile nuns.. Either let priests marry or only allow women to be priests..

I doubt that this would really accomplish much. People who prey on children rarely do so because they can't have sex with anyone else. Look at all the married men who molest their daughters, students, their kids friends etc.

On the other hand it may be true that some people are drawn to the priesthood because of the celibacy requirement. These people may find it easier to not have to explain their lack of "normal" sexual desires, or they may join in the hopes that by focusing on a holy life that they may be able to resist their baser urges etc. Ridding the priesthood of the celibacy requirement might open it up to more "normal" people who might be less likely to be prone to abberant sexual behaviors.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I hoped for some proofs, not modern surmisions

I'm sure you'll just toss every book I reference as being biased or not right and believe what Catholic dogma will indoctrinate you with.

not everyone. And I didn't claim that these were just a few bad apples. If it was so, it would have been easy.

Not everyone, but it seemed like it was condoned by just about everyone. Only certain sects were appauled by it and many practiced it, indicating that a lot of people did not consider it immoral.

You're just making bad conclusions out of true information.
The hierarchy of the church, with patriarchs as their leaders, never ceased to exist, bah, it was finally established on synnodes which were, as You say, called by emperors. Emperors were powerfull figures within the church, but aside from the hierarchy.
Do You really believe that papacy is only invention of gregorian reforms? That it looked like dozens of post-reformation Englands?

No, I'm making TRUE conclusions out of true facts. The Papacy, as it is now, is indeed the invention of the monk Hildenbrand (aka, Gregory VII). The Anglican Church is actually a good analogy. Before the Papal Revolution, that is how Christianity looked, with the King as head of the Church. READ the histories of Charlemagne, or Alfred the Great in England. They controlled the Church and they considered themselves the heads of the Church. What do you think the slogan "freedom of the church" meant? It meant freedom from the King, who was the head of the Church in each state at the time.

[Brundlefly]

Re: Re: Re: JPII: Sexual balance and celibacy examinations

Originally posted by Sikander


I doubt that this would really accomplish much. People who prey on children rarely do so because they can't have sex with anyone else. Look at all the married men who molest their daughters, students, their kids friends etc.

Those married men molesting children are probably doing so because their wife has shut them off sexually. OR their current sex life is unsatisfying. They may have come to pedophilia indirectly through regular pornography and developed an obsession. Much like some people who sample a joint and then a year later have progressed to crack.

[Heresson]

I'm sure you'll just toss every book I reference as being biased or not right and believe what Catholic dogma will indoctrinate you with.

While You'll call everything catholic propaganda

No, I'm making TRUE conclusions out of true facts. The Papacy, as it is now, is indeed the invention of the monk Hildenbrand (aka, Gregory VII). The Anglican Church is actually a good analogy. Before the Papal Revolution, that is how Christianity looked, with the King as head of the Church. READ the histories of Charlemagne, or Alfred the Great in England. They controlled the Church and they considered themselves the heads of the Church. What do you think the slogan "freedom of the church" meant? It meant freedom from the King, who was the head of the Church in each state at the time.

You're exagerrating.
Tell me again: did the patriarchates cease to exist?
Didn't archdioceses and missonary dioceses fall under papal obediance?
Why pope was needed to allow coronation in kingdoms like Poland? Why establishing new dioceses needed papal sanction?
I do not deny that medieval rulers practically ruled the church, but as I suspected, You see it through protestant/anglican history, and that's a big misconception.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


"one wife" is the church.

If you see these sentences alone,
you might come this conclusion,
that wife might be "the church"

But the letter to Timothy goes on:

3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

3:5 For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

These sentences make a clear distinction between the own household of the bishop (and his own children, he is supposed to have) and the church.

Hm, theorethically, You could have children before becoming a priest

[Imran Siddiqui]

While You'll call everything catholic propaganda

Cause it was.

You're exagerrating.
Tell me again: did the patriarchates cease to exist?
Didn't archdioceses and missonary dioceses fall under papal obediance?
Why pope was needed to allow coronation in kingdoms like Poland? Why establishing new dioceses needed papal sanction?
I do not deny that medieval rulers practically ruled the church, but as I suspected, You see it through protestant/anglican history, and that's a big misconception.

The Pope (as well as Bishops of other big towns) could order some dioceses, but SO COULD the King! The Kings set up dioceses as much as they wanted. And I'm not looking at it through Protestant/Anglican history, but Germanic and French history as well. Charlemagne had full reign over the Church. He created dioceses in his kingdom. He appointed those who would head those dioceses. He treated the Pope only as his personal priest and nothing more. The Pope had little to no power over Charlemagne's kingdom.

That's just one example.

[Heresson]

Don't You mix theory and practic?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, I didn't. The theory was ALSO that the Emperor or King was the head of the church. Charlemagne considered himself the head of the church when he ruled. So did Kings in other countries in that period.

[Heresson]

Do You have any proof of that they thought of themselves as "head of church"?
And again, do You think pope was just (arch)bishop of Rome and nothing more?