ISIS

[calitennis127]

These things obviously have a deeper theology behind them, and finding what's "natural" with regards to humans is not an activity that'll lead to any single way. Celibacy isn't for everyone, but it is for some. And others struggle with monogamy. And so on. Is monogamy natural? Doesn't always feel so to me, especially at about 2am on a Saturday night. :snigger

Kieran, murat certainly has a point that in an animalistic sense, monogamy is "unnatural". However, that idea doesn't take into account the full reality of what human beings are. I really wish murat would study some Greek philosophy, so he could be liberated from the dungeon he finds himself in. It would get him to contemplate the soul in a manner divorced from the modern religions he is vexed by.

As for what is "natural", it can very easily be pointed out that while sex outside the bounds of marriage is completely natural physically, marriage itself is a universal standard of human societies that can also be called "natural". Furthermore, I would add that the Western world's current demographic suicide is one of the most UNNATURAL trends we have ever witnessed in world history. While I myself am often a selfish jackass of a human being, when I look at the big picture and see how the population of every Western nation is going to drop by 15 to 30 million by 2050 because of the revolution against marriage, I see that as a very "unnatural" development. No significant civilization in history has loathed itself that much.

 

[calitennis127]

The Catholic Church has upheld the discipline of clerical celibacy for around 1,000 years by now and it has been, overwhelmingly, a success.

Out of interest, what measurement are you using to judge clerical celibacy a success?

Primarily by the definition murat is propping up, which is not being a pedophile or molester. If celibacy is such an unhealthy menace that causes priests to be molesting freaks disproportionately, then there would be some evidence of this. There is none. Murat would have you believe that 45% of priets since 1000 AD have been serial pedophiles.

Now if someone wants to maintain that celibacy is often an unrealistic standard, then I would just point out that pretty much every civilized standard is. How many times do you see "honesty in public office" lived up to, despite all the cliche chatter about how important it is? So do we dispense with lofty standards altogether just because of mankind's depravity or insufficiency?

 

[britbox]

The Catholic Church has upheld the discipline of clerical celibacy for around 1,000 years by now and it has been, overwhelmingly, a success.

Out of interest, what measurement are you using to judge clerical celibacy a success?

Primarily by the definition murat is propping up, which is not being a pedophile or molester. If celibacy is such an unhealthy menace that causes priests to be molesting freaks disproportionately, then there would be some evidence of this. There is none. Murat would have you believe that 45% of priets since 1000 AD have been serial pedophiles.

Now if someone wants to maintain that celibacy is often an unrealistic standard, then I would just point out that pretty much every civilized standard is. How many times do you see "honesty in public office" lived up to, despite all the cliche chatter about how important it is? So do we dispense with lofty standards altogether just because of mankind's depravity or insufficiency?

I don't think that was the case Murat put forward but I'm interested to hear why celibacy is regarded as a success in isolation of any other pre-conceived views of other people's opinions.

 

[Kieran]

Clerical celibacy is a success because it frees the pious soul to focus their being on Jesus, prayer, and serving others.

All the clergy, nuns, monks I know, some of whom are cloistered and spend a lot of their time in silent prayer and meditation, are among the most grounded, practical, and endearing people you could ever meet. They shine like angels. They lift me up when I meet them. They've gone into what's known as "white martyrdom", a term first used by St Jerome for ascetics who spend their life doing charitable acts, and in prayer and devotion to God.

Now - you may not like any of this, but then they might not like any of the ways we live. But there is more than one way to live, and sexual activity isn't for everybody, nor is monogamy, but we stick to that in the western world - mainly - because it's our societal norm. The norm for priests is to forego the pleasures of this world in favour of the next.

I would recommend many spiritual books by these women and men, and you'd see the fruits of their secret lives are very profound and helpful to us out here. Sure, there are bad clerics etc, but I think we're getting confused to a very serious degree if we mix up celibacy with paedophilia...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

If you have looked into celibacy, contemplated it and your end result is that it is healthy for an adult male to suppress his sexual desires , which is one of the fundamental urges for people in general according the hierarchy of needs, and then put that person in a position of power with vulnerable young persons around him, then I do not really care how long you have contemplated it, I just do not agree with the basic premise. It is not reasonable and it is not logical.

No, you are not reasonable and you are not logical.

The Catholic Church has upheld the discipline of clerical celibacy for around 1,000 years by now and it has been, overwhelmingly, a success. There is no chain of 30% of priests for a millenium being serial pedophiles, as you believe in your imagination. If you look at the overall numbers and study something, you will see that statistically the percentage of Catholic priests who have committed these acts is minute, and frankly, the reasons for this perversion among Catholic priests the last 50 years has much more to do with the softening of standards in entering the priesthood and the overall emasculation of Christianity. Priests used to be disciplined, active members of their communities. Now they are isolated psychotherapists whose minds have been influenced by nefarious secular influences.

I am also thrilled to see that you think Socrates never thought things through. Too bad the ancient Greeks couldn't produce the atheist-bred high culture of North America in the 21st century, centered on the Kardashian family. Since you refused to answer my question about Socrates, let me ask you a more highbrow atheist question: can you believe what Scott said to Chloe about Kim's divorce?

That's a really intellectual question of enlightened atheist culture. Please answer it.

SOMETHING THAT IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION CAN NEVER BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTH.

Including the stupid and ignorant philosophy works of Ayn Rand, who was an undereducated clown of a human being.

I will address your larger silly point about interpretation later this weekend when I have more time.....

The reason one can never talk with you rationally is because your whole argument depends on building straw men and fighting against it. Do not put words in my mouth.

I do not know who Chloe is , but you must be enjoying whoever that person is.

Also, you are an atheist too, you know. I am sure you do not believe in Zeus, Baal, Thor...I just took it one step further. Explain to me why you do not believe in other gods?

Also, please interpret a²+b²=c² for me, just to humor Pythagoras , eh?

Also let's try F-E+E=2 I am sure engineers and biologists would rather use that as a guide than a talking snake.

Would you rather use the Fourier equation for signal analysis or a verse from Koran to compress JPEG format? Please interpret that.

You are a clown Cali. Your kind sacrificed virgins when volcanos erupted because they thought the gods were angry. MY kind showed them what lava is.

Go away. Aren't you supposed to be at a rally with Westboro against some poor gay guy? Go man, do not let me keep you...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Not all churches are the same. Some allow their priests to wed and have children. It's typical, always brand everybody the same, that is our biggest mistake.:nono

But how can we ever do that? When it is all open to interpretation?

There is not a single intellectual discipline, including political philosophy and science, that is not "open to interpretation". Religion is by no means unique for being open to interpretation.

Do you know how many scientists throughout history have put forward inaccurate and incomplete hypotheses? Countless. Copernicus and Galileo, for instance, got it right that the sun was at the center of the universe, but they each held a number of other beliefs about the planetary systems that were proven to be outright false in later centuries. I guess science is stupid too then, because it is "open to interpretation" and people say false things when discussing it.

Of course you are right, but none of those other disciplines have stakes as high as going to heaven or hell, like religion. So religion being open to interpretation is a bit different than a scientist offering a hypotheses. A scientist knows what he is offering is a hypotheses. He will change his position as new info surfaces. He is not telling people they will go to hell. Religion does NOT change its position as new data arrives. Same old delusions repeated century after century.

So when Deuteronomy 23:1 (King James version) says "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD." , it is still the same after centuries and one just keeps on wondering why god hates men with testicular cancer.

 

[calitennis127]

Clerical celibacy is a success because it frees the pious soul to focus their being on Jesus, prayer, and serving others.

All the clergy, nuns, monks I know, some of whom are cloistered and spend a lot of their time in silent prayer and meditation, are among the most grounded, practical, and endearing people you could ever meet. They shine like angels. They lift me up when I meet them. They've gone into what's known as "white martyrdom", a term first used by St Jerome for ascetics who spend their life doing charitable acts, and in prayer and devotion to God.

Now - you may not like any of this, but then they might not like any of the ways we live. But there is more than one way to live, and sexual activity isn't for everybody, nor is monogamy, but we stick to that in the western world - mainly - because it's our societal norm. The norm for priests is to forego the pleasures of this world in favour of the next.

I would recommend many spiritual books by these women and men, and you'd see the fruits of their secret lives are very profound and helpful to us out here. Sure, there are bad clerics etc, but I think we're getting confused to a very serious degree if we mix up celibacy with paedophilia...

Do not expect Murat or BrokenShoelace to respond to such a well-reasoned post.....it is too rational.

 

[calitennis127]

The reason one can never talk with you rationally is because your whole argument depends on building straw men and fighting against it. Do not put words in my mouth.

I have not put up a single straw man. You argued that it was basically insane to allow celibate clergy to be around children, completely ignoring the statistical facts that Kieran and I have brought up. Clerical celibacy has been in place for 1,000 years and there is no record of a centuries-long problem with pedophilia. There has been a modern challenge with it in the Church due to many outside influences corrupting Church practice during the last 50 years, and even then, the Church hasn't had a worse problem than other institutions in society - if we're just going by the facts, which, in most cases, you claim to care about.

I do not know who Chloe is , but you must be enjoying whoever that person is.

Chloe Kardashian is an icon of contemporary atheist American culture. As Christianity and the Classics have declined, her life has become iconic. She is the superstar of your world.

Also, you are an atheist too, you know. I am sure you do not believe in Zeus, Baal, Thor...I just took it one step further. Explain to me why you do not believe in other gods?

Because there is an extremely well-reasoned theology that you know nothing of (as is typical of your assessment of every subject you attempt to tackle) explaining why there is a monotheistic order to the universe.

Also, please interpret a²+b²=c² for me, just to humor Pythagoras , eh?

I have already established in this conversation that you know nothing about the ancient Greeks and you are simply a product of the modern West's disastrous educational decline. So please don't put a Greek name in your mouth. It is an insult to all of them.

Go read a dialogue of Plato and then try to talk to me.

Also let's try F-E+E=2 I am sure engineers and biologists would rather use that as a guide than a talking snake.

Would those engineers and biologists include the 35 Jesuit priests who have craters on the moon named after them due to their achievements in the field of astronomy?

Would you rather use the Fourier equation for signal analysis or a verse from Koran to compress JPEG format? Please interpret that.

That is such a stupid question that it doesn't warrant a response, but I will answer it nonetheless. While the Fourier equation and the Koran have nothing to do with each other, modern science and the Christian Middle Ages are inextricably connected. Read this book and learn something for once:

The Foundation of Modern Science in the Middle Ages

You are a clown Cali. Your kind sacrificed virgins when volcanos erupted because they thought the gods were angry. MY kind showed them what lava is.

Your kind is so ignorant that it lumps literally every conception of spirituality or religion into one generic category. These are subjects of broad scholarship that have been contemplated by many brilliant minds, but you somehow think that it is nothing but a couple little fairy tales here and there. My "kind" has adhered, however imperfectly, to a religion that has enriched the world more than any other influence in history. It has nothing to do with Mayan mass sacrifice or warped Wahhabist political ideology.

Go away. Aren't you supposed to be at a rally with Westboro against some poor gay guy? Go man, do not let me keep you...

Hey, if you can't defeat arguments (like the ones about the intolerance and repression of atheist regimes), then just push them away.

You know nothing about history and precious little about political philosophy or religion. That is why you are an objectivist, which is about as low as it gets on the rankings of political or religious affiliations.

 

[calitennis127]

Of course you are right, but none of those other disciplines have stakes as high as going to heaven or hell, like religion.

Absurd statement, but with it you prove the theory of evolution more correct than Richard Dawkins ever could have: humans are very similar to apes. Like apes, human beings tend not to learn from things even when they are made plainly obvious many times over. Humans and apes both tend to forget.

To say that religion makes the stakes of this life uniquely high in a bad way is an extraordinary inversion of reality. The 20th century was a lesson in pretty much the opposite: when you eliminate the Christian (or Jewish) religion and replace it with a desire to make ideal visions of political existence come about, you pretty much get unimaginable disaster and suffering. Lenin and Robespierre (and their supporting casts) were no Christians, and they were among the most fanatical human beings who ever lived. They didn't need a religious invocation to feel passionately about life and truly enforce programs of terror.

So religion being open to interpretation is a bit different than a scientist offering a hypotheses. A scientist knows what he is offering is a hypotheses. He will change his position as new info surfaces. He is not telling people they will go to hell. Religion does NOT change its position as new data arrives.

This is just downright wrong. You have to know nothing at all about Church councils or Church history to say this. In the Galileo affair, for instance, Cardinal Bellarmine and others made it very clear that if Galileo's hypothesis were proven true, then the passages of the Bible which had historically been interpreted as meaning that the earth was the literal center of the universe would have to be re-interpreted.

If you knew anything at all about history instead of your cheap TV dinner version of it, maybe you would know that.

So when Deuteronomy 23:1 (King James version) says "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD." , it is still the same after centuries and one just keeps on wondering why god hates men with testicular cancer.

The Catholic Church has never interpreted the Bible as 100% literally true. That was the issue of the Protestant Reformation, in case you are unaware (ever heard of the Sola Scriptura debate?). Catholics are not the same as fundamentalist Protestants or Muslims who believe in the "immutable perfection" of the Qu'ran. Stop lumping very different groups together.

 

[calitennis127]

Wait, you actually don't really see that my initial comment about the war in Iraq being driven by Christianity was sarcasm in response to you bringing up gay rights?

Wait.....I did, but then, you said something else, so I, connected it to, wait, a broader conversation that is, wait, relevant to the topic at hand.

And, by the way, it is no stretch at all to say that the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were carried out in the name of a new secular world order in which gay rights are regarded as symbolic and essential. The language of rights and freedom that Bush used in his foreign policy speeches is the same that is used to justify gay rights.

 

[calitennis127]

The Catholic Church has upheld the discipline of clerical celibacy for around 1,000 years by now and it has been, overwhelmingly, a success.

Out of interest, what measurement are you using to judge clerical celibacy a success?

Primarily by the definition murat is propping up, which is not being a pedophile or molester. If celibacy is such an unhealthy menace that causes priests to be molesting freaks disproportionately, then there would be some evidence of this. There is none. Murat would have you believe that 45% of priets since 1000 AD have been serial pedophiles.

Now if someone wants to maintain that celibacy is often an unrealistic standard, then I would just point out that pretty much every civilized standard is. How many times do you see "honesty in public office" lived up to, despite all the cliche chatter about how important it is? So do we dispense with lofty standards altogether just because of mankind's depravity or insufficiency?

I don't think that was the case Murat put forward but I'm interested to hear why celibacy is regarded as a success in isolation of any other pre-conceived views of other people's opinions.

It has been successful because scores of priests and nuns have used it as an essential means for leading exemplary contemplative lives and providing guidance to countless numbers of people. And they did this in large part for the very reasons that Socrates discussed in the Phaedo.

 

[britbox]

The Catholic Church has upheld the discipline of clerical celibacy for around 1,000 years by now and it has been, overwhelmingly, a success.

Out of interest, what measurement are you using to judge clerical celibacy a success?

Primarily by the definition murat is propping up, which is not being a pedophile or molester. If celibacy is such an unhealthy menace that causes priests to be molesting freaks disproportionately, then there would be some evidence of this. There is none. Murat would have you believe that 45% of priets since 1000 AD have been serial pedophiles.

Now if someone wants to maintain that celibacy is often an unrealistic standard, then I would just point out that pretty much every civilized standard is. How many times do you see "honesty in public office" lived up to, despite all the cliche chatter about how important it is? So do we dispense with lofty standards altogether just because of mankind's depravity or insufficiency?

I don't think that was the case Murat put forward but I'm interested to hear why celibacy is regarded as a success in isolation of any other pre-conceived views of other people's opinions.

It has been successful because scores of priests and nuns have used it as an essential means for leading exemplary contemplative lives and providing guidance to countless numbers of people. And they did this in large part for the very reasons that Socrates discussed in the Phaedo.

I'm sure priests and nuns have given plenty of guidance to people, as have those who aren't priests or nuns and daresay not exactly celibate. Do you think those same priests would have failed if celibacy wasn't enforced in the catholic church?

You might suggest they'd have less time to offer, but I'd argue you'd get two or three times as many people going into the church if celibacy wasn't an issue.

 

[Kieran]

Celibacy isn't an issue of quantity, but spiritual quality. Married and sexually active people have different spiritual lives, but the life of a celibate, when it's lived in adoration and reflection of the Lord is a particular calling, and the depths of wisdom it can yield are different in quality to those of us who marry.

Better or worse depends on how it's received but I recommend anything by "A Carthusian" as an example of how a life perfectly wedded to Christ can produce the fruits of many spiritual graces. Now, these are different graces to those received by others, but they're necessary for the whole body of the Church. But celibacy itself isn't a sign of holiness, or a guarantee of anything, and nor is it an easy life, and it isn't for everyone.

And as I said above, celibacy is a tradition of the church, not a dogma, which means it can be altered if the Church decides it needs to be. And also, there are rites with the Church where priests can marry. In the Latin rite, they can't. In places like Africa and Fiji and other places not in Europe, vocations to the priesthood are rising rapidly. The fall in vocations in the west reflects more the decline of faith than it does any disagreement with celibacy...

 

[britbox]

Celibacy isn't an issue of quantity, but spiritual quality. Married and sexually active people have different spiritual lives, but the life of a celibate, when it's lived in adoration and reflection of the Lord is a particular calling, and the depths of wisdom it can yield are different in quality to those of us who marry.

Better or worse depends on how it's received but I recommend anything by "A Carthusian" as an example of how a life perfectly wedded to Christ can produce the fruits of many spiritual graces. Now, these are different graces to those received by others, but they're necessary for the whole body of the Church. But celibacy itself isn't a sign of holiness, or a guarantee of anything, and nor is it an easy life, and it isn't for everyone.

And as I said above, celibacy is a tradition of the church, not a dogma, which means it can be altered if the Church decides it needs to be. And also, there are rites with the Church where priests can marry. In the Latin rite, they can't. In places like Africa and Fiji and other places not in Europe, vocations to the priesthood are rising rapidly. The fall in vocations in the west reflects more the decline of faith than it does any disagreement with celibacy...

^ If somebody has that calling then they don't need it imposed on them by the church.

If it's a tradition then I'd suggest it's one they should re-consider.

 

[Kieran]

Celibacy isn't an issue of quantity, but spiritual quality. Married and sexually active people have different spiritual lives, but the life of a celibate, when it's lived in adoration and reflection of the Lord is a particular calling, and the depths of wisdom it can yield are different in quality to those of us who marry.

Better or worse depends on how it's received but I recommend anything by "A Carthusian" as an example of how a life perfectly wedded to Christ can produce the fruits of many spiritual graces. Now, these are different graces to those received by others, but they're necessary for the whole body of the Church. But celibacy itself isn't a sign of holiness, or a guarantee of anything, and nor is it an easy life, and it isn't for everyone.

And as I said above, celibacy is a tradition of the church, not a dogma, which means it can be altered if the Church decides it needs to be. And also, there are rites with the Church where priests can marry. In the Latin rite, they can't. In places like Africa and Fiji and other places not in Europe, vocations to the priesthood are rising rapidly. The fall in vocations in the west reflects more the decline of faith than it does any disagreement with celibacy...

^ If somebody has that calling then they don't need it imposed on them by the church.

If it's a tradition then I'd suggest it's one they should re-consider.

It's not imposed on them by the Church - it's imposed on them by their calling. It's the nature of the vocation. I know many who are priests, nuns and monks, including another friend who recently went into be a Carmelite nun in Lithuania, and she has long been a celibate, long before she went into be a nun. She was always drawn to prayer and an ascetic spiritual routine, even though she had a full-time job. She was practically living the life, before she gave up on life in the secular world.

The call got too great for her and the job was eating into her life with the Lord. She felt she had no other avenues of refusal and she's pleased as punch where she is...

 

[britbox]

^ So, Roman Catholic priests in the UK (for instance) don't need to subscribe to celibacy?

 

[Kieran]

^ So, Roman Catholic priests in the UK (for instance) don't need to subscribe to celibacy?

They do, if they're Latin rite priests. But for example, Pope benedict threw the doors open for Anglican priests to join the Church, and they can come and be priests, while still being married.

There are other Churches which are in full communion with Rome, meaning they're of the Catholic Church, but their priests can marry. There are many mansions in this house, brother...

 

[britbox]

Sounds like the Anglican mansion is the place to visit first chief.

 

[Kieran]

Sounds like the Anglican mansion is the place to visit first chief.

The Anglicans who Benedict welcomed into the Church are no longer Anglicans. For those who'd like to be of that rite, you would have to be an Anglican priest to start with, and then convert.

But you know, the only calling isn't to priesthood, or celibacy. I don't feel less a Catholic than any priest, or monk. My call is different, and we all have to be witnesses in our own way, and according to our faith. It isn't a lesser calling to be a lay person - it's just a different one...

 

[shawnbm]

To Br. Kieran I say, Amen!