Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



2/07/2018 11:03 am  #11


Re: What do you think about priestly celibacy?

seigneur wrote:

What form of command is this? How is it a command at all?

That verse is not a command, and I did not say it was. I said, "what would count as a scriptural basis for priestly celibacy depends rather on what form of command it is": the antecedent of "it" is clearly "[Roman Catholicism's requirement of] priestly celibacy." Roman Catholicism does not interpret that verse as a command of priestly celibacy, any more than it interprets "Do this in remembrance of me" as a prescription that the Mass should have the precise form it has in the Roman Rite.

 

2/09/2018 4:45 am  #12


Re: What do you think about priestly celibacy?

Greg wrote:

seigneur wrote:

What form of command is this? How is it a command at all?

That verse is not a command, and I did not say it was. I said, "what would count as a scriptural basis for priestly celibacy depends rather on what form of command it is": the antecedent of "it" is clearly "[Roman Catholicism's requirement of] priestly celibacy." Roman Catholicism does not interpret that verse as a command of priestly celibacy, any more than it interprets "Do this in remembrance of me" as a prescription that the Mass should have the precise form it has in the Roman Rite.

Is this supposed to explain why celibacy is compulsory to priests on Roman Catholicism? I guess the answer is no.

 

2/09/2018 8:46 am  #13


Re: What do you think about priestly celibacy?

seigneur wrote:

Is this supposed to explain why celibacy is compulsory to priests on Roman Catholicism? I guess the answer is no.

If by 'this' you mean my most recent post, then no. That was not an explanation but a reply to your misunderstanding of my previous explanation.

 

2/09/2018 11:13 am  #14


Re: What do you think about priestly celibacy?

Greg wrote:

That was not an explanation but a reply to your misunderstanding of my previous explanation.

But your previous explanation was not an explanation. The question is why priestly celibacy is compulsory. If the emphasis in your explanation is not on "form of command", then it is on "some good is served by it". This does not answer the question.

You appeal to apostle Paul, "We have from St. Paul that it is good to remain unmarried, if one can." Yes, if one can. Can priests do that? Should they? In RCC they must. Why?

By now I know you won't answer.

 

2/09/2018 12:28 pm  #15


Re: What do you think about priestly celibacy?

seigneur wrote:

But your previous explanation was not an explanation. The question is why priestly celibacy is compulsory. If the emphasis in your explanation is not on "form of command", then it is on "some good is served by it". This does not answer the question.

You appeal to apostle Paul, "We have from St. Paul that it is good to remain unmarried, if one can." Yes, if one can. Can priests do that? Should they? In RCC they must. Why?

As I said in my first explanation, which you are still ignoring, "All one needs for a determination to be made by a proper authority is that some good is served by it." And some good is served by it, as we agree. Hence "it is far from incredible that a church should require its priests not to marry."

That's how authority works. Prior to any authority's saying so, it is not morally required that people drive on the right side of the road. But some good is served by having such a policy. Hence a legitimate authority can require that people drive on the right side of the road. Again, it is not required by scripture, say, that the Mass takes the precise form it does (for example, that this or that Missal must be used). But some good is served by the Mass having a particular form, including this one. Hence a legitimate authority can require that priests celebrate the Mass in a certain way.

Note that by "form of command," I patently meant "kind of command," and I was clearly referring the kind of command which Roman Catholicism's requirement of celibacy is: "... what would count as a scriptural basis for priestly celibacy depends rather on what form of command it is. If it were thought to be a kind of moral command of completely general application (it is always bad for someone to be a priest and to be non-celibate), then the fact that there is no sentence in the Sermon on the Mount, or somewhere similar, to that effect would tell against its having a proper reason.." The point was clearly that Roman Catholicism's reason for requiring its priests to be celibate is not that it thinks scripture teaches it to be a moral requirement on priests or anyone else. Rather, as I went on to say, the kind of command is the determination by proper authority of how things are going to be done around here, even though they don't have to be. If that is the kind of the command being issued in requiring priests to be celibate, then the necessary scriptural basis is not that some verse say priests must be celibate, but rather that some verse say that some good be served by priestly celibacy.

Why is it compulsory? Because a legitimate authority has said that's how it'll be. Why has the legitimate authority said that's how it'll be? Because some good is served by it. That's the simple answer I have given throughout, spelled out in detail sufficient, I hope, that it can't be ignored.

 

2/24/2018 7:50 am  #16


Re: What do you think about priestly celibacy?

Greg wrote:

Why is it compulsory? Because a legitimate authority has said that's how it'll be. Why has the legitimate authority said that's how it'll be? Because some good is served by it. That's the simple answer I have given throughout, spelled out in detail sufficient, I hope, that it can't be ignored.

A good concise answer. But nobody has been ignoring this. Rather, it's way too easy to point out that the legitimate authority you have in mind (selected church tradition) is at odds with another legitimate, arguably more fundamental, authority (1 Timothy 3:2, 12).

 

2/24/2018 5:00 pm  #17


Re: What do you think about priestly celibacy?

seigneur wrote:

A good concise answer.

Thanks.

seigneur wrote:

Rather, it's way too easy to point out that the legitimate authority you have in mind (selected church tradition) is at odds with another legitimate, arguably more fundamental, authority (1 Timothy 3:2, 12).

How are they at odds? Those verses say that bishops and deacons should be "husbands of one wife." Presumably (especially in light of what Paul says elsewhere) you are not going to read that as a command for bishops and deacons to marry, but rather as a requirement that if they marry, they marry once.

That is the standard to which the Catholic Church holds married priests in the eastern rites and in the Anglican Ordinariate. It is also the standard to which it, albeit vacuously, holds its priests in the Roman Rite. It's entirely compatible with requiring them not to marry at all.

seigneur wrote:

But nobody has been ignoring this.

You're introducing a novel argument, or rather a new consideration--since it is not really clear why one would think there's a tension between required celibacy and 1 Timothy 3.

 

2/24/2018 5:19 pm  #18


Re: What do you think about priestly celibacy?

Greg wrote:

How are they at odds? Those verses say that bishops and deacons should be "husbands of one wife." Presumably (especially in light of what Paul says elsewhere) you are not going to read that as a command for bishops and deacons to marry, but rather as a requirement that if they marry, they marry once.

That is the standard to which the Catholic Church holds married priests in the eastern rites and in the Anglican Ordinariate. It is also the standard to which it, albeit vacuously, holds its priests in the Roman Rite. It's entirely compatible with requiring them not to marry at all.

The verses do not require bishops to marry, but they do not require celibacy either. They give permission to be married. Roman Catholic requirement of celibacy takes the permission way. That's how the Roman Catholic tradition is incompatible with the verses.

I really do not need to explain this. The question in the OP is obvious and comes from well-known facts. Or would you say it's an ignorant question that has nothing to do with actual Catholicism?

Last edited by seigneur (2/24/2018 5:22 pm)

 

2/24/2018 6:02 pm  #19


Re: What do you think about priestly celibacy?

seigneur wrote:

The verses do not require bishops to marry, but they do not require celibacy either. They give permission to be married. Roman Catholic requirement of celibacy takes the permission way. That's how the Roman Catholic tradition is incompatible with the verses.

First of all, I do not often level the criticism of "fundamentalism"--indeed, I do not think I ever have ever in the past--but that is what your reading of these verses is. The context of Paul's advice is clearly one of limitation and restriction. His use of the number "one" indicates that his point is to say: not more than one. There is simply no basis for reading him as making the far stronger claim that you need him to make, if you are to bring his comments into tension with the Church's discipline: that in every context, a bishop or deacon is permitted to marry. Sorry.

It's perhaps more important for our purposes that we can even grant your reading of the text, but your desired consequence does not follow. You can't get incompatibility here without equivocating. For, as we have noted, the Church is issuing a legal/disciplinary directive in requiring its priests not to marry. Paul either is making a moral point or is issuing a legal/disciplinary directive. In the former case, there's no tension. "Φ-ing is a morally permissible act type" and "In this time and place (etc.), it is not legally permissible to Φ" are entirely compatible. But if Paul is issuing a legal/disciplinary directive, then there is also no incompatibility between some institution's permitting Φ-ing at one point and not at another. This happens all the time.

seigneur wrote:

I really do not need to explain this.

It is not that you don't need to explain it; it is that you can't, because the thesis you are trying to explain is false.

 

2/25/2018 1:38 am  #20


Re: What do you think about priestly celibacy?

Greg wrote:

seigneur wrote:

The verses do not require bishops to marry, but they do not require celibacy either. They give permission to be married. Roman Catholic requirement of celibacy takes the permission way. That's how the Roman Catholic tradition is incompatible with the verses.

First of all, I do not often level the criticism of "fundamentalism"--indeed, I do not think I ever have ever in the past--but that is what your reading of these verses is. The context of Paul's advice is clearly one of limitation and restriction. His use of the number "one" indicates that his point is to say: not more than one. There is simply no basis for reading him as making the far stronger claim that you need him to make, if you are to bring his comments into tension with the Church's discipline: that in every context, a bishop or deacon is permitted to marry. Sorry.

Sorry, but you are the fundamentalist here. The cited verses do not, by any stretch of the imagination, entail the requirement not to marry while the Roman Catholic doctrine or discipline or whatever you call it has this requirement.

And while you manage to talk at length, you also manage to say nothing resembling an answer to the OP.

These are the questions: Do you think the practice [of priestly celibacy] should continue? Do you see it ever becoming optional?

The questions assume that there is such a thing as priestly celibacy - compulsory, not optional - in Roman Catholicism. Is this a mistaken assumption? What are the real facts on ground, in your opinion?

As far as I know, Roman Catholicism is the only (major) denomination requiring priestly celibacy. A simple and obvious answer to why no other (major) denomination requires it is that it's not a scriptural requirement.

Last edited by seigneur (2/25/2018 2:03 am)

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum