CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[NKBJ]

Time travel...
If you mean like Tony jumping into the time tunnel to go make clay pot hand grenades in an ancient battle... why not?
We've been given a great deal of leeway in so far as free will goes, within the limitations of coming here of course. What you do in the next few minutes will change what happens in the next few after that. And our creator has a handle on it. So if somebody started throwing hand grenades centuries ago He did/will/would have a handle on it. That's not saying that I think everyone has complete free will. Obviously He exercises control, we're all on a leash of some length and He has great big boots to plant one in your backside if and when He decides to.

 

[historian]

Bumping this as it might be the better vehicle for the soon to be large discussion that is happening in General Religion. It might be best to move it over here as it involves the RCC.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Pope admits clerical abuse of nuns including sexual slavery

I just heard that on the radio this morning... can we seriously start talking about why the RCC has a un-biblical blanket ban on marriage?

.

Sure. (Although I thought we already did.)

But... uh... do you think that priestly marriage would somehow change whether certain people participate in sexual misconduct?

I believe the 2 behaviors to be independent of each other.

Historically, yes, there would have been fewer babies in the bottoms of wells in Europe. Now, I doubt there would be much of a difference, although these latest allegations really raise some eyebrows about the future of nunneries.

I'm more concerned about how Frank just offhandedly mentioned that, "oh, yeah, this is still ongoing, but [FONT="]¯\_(ツ)_/¯."[/FONT]

 

[historian]

Thanks GPIATHADVLKJEOIT!@#*#($

 

[indiucky]

https://babylonbee.com/news/calvinist-hymnal-released

 

[JettaKnight]

Sure. (Although I thought we already did.)

But... uh... do you think that priestly marriage would somehow change whether certain people participate in sexual misconduct?

I believe the 2 behaviors to be independent of each other.

I do believe that. At the risk of sounding liberal, doesn't Paul write in I Cor. 7 that, paraphrasing, "if you can't keep it in your pants, keep it in your marriage?"


There's manifold sex scandals now, as to the pedophilia, let's agree that marriage ain't gonna fix it. But the nuns and abortion? You can at least admit that if they could freely marry, have children, use contraception (gasp!), and still be a nun, that's a win-win scenario for some people. Looking at it from the outside, it seems reasonable. Now sure, the roles would change, you can't be married and totally dedicated to the church, but there has to be some in-between for those that want to be in the RCC, but also want to take skin boat to tuna town.

 

[JettaKnight]

https://babylonbee.com/news/calvinist-hymnal-released

I am destined to buy it!

 

[T.Lex]

But the nuns and abortion? You can at least admit that if they could freely marry, have children, use contraception (gasp!), and still be a nun, that's a win-win scenario for some people.

I was almost with you until the contraception thing. Catholic teaching remains tied to rhythm.

Even if we skip that part, there are daily reports of (mostly men) who are married and unable to control their urges for misconduct. Frankly, in my experience, there isn't a single time where a single guy does something bad to a woman and there's a collective, "Well, if he'd been married that wouldn't have happened."

That sentiment seems reserved for RCC priests.

Looking at it from the outside, it seems reasonable. Now sure, the roles would change, you can't be married and totally dedicated to the church, but there has to be some in-between for those that want to be in the RCC, but also want to take skin boat to tuna town.

There are options. One can be a lay minister, or even part of the permanent deaconate. This isn't an either/or situation.

The vow to dedicate oneself to the church is an extra measure. I'm sure it is a sacrifice, but to listen to those who comprise the vast majority of properly-acting priests, it is a sacrifice worth making to work toward that greater dedication.

 

[JettaKnight]

I was almost with you until the contraception thing. Catholic teaching remains tied to rhythm.

And Baptist remain firmly against rhythm.
Horrified Baptist Parents Discover 'Fortnite' Contains Dancing

Even if we skip that part, there are daily reports of (mostly men) who are married and unable to control their urges for misconduct. Frankly, in my experience, there isn't a single time where a single guy does something bad to a woman and there's a collective, "Well, if he'd been married that wouldn't have happened."

I'm trying to avoid thinking the RCC is worse than the population at large due to reporting - the percentages are probably the same.

But, I do think that there's a big difference - a Church that says, "thou shall not marry" (or you can quit the priesthood and get a "real job"...)
Sure, if you're a creepy perv, just having a wife isn't the complete solution, but if one priest and one nun are in a secret monogamous relationship, wouldn't it be better to have that be righteous in the eyes of God and man?

There are options. One can be a lay minister, or even part of the permanent deaconate. This isn't an either/or situation.

The vow to dedicate oneself to the church is an extra measure. I'm sure it is a sacrifice, but to listen to those who comprise the vast majority of properly-acting priests, it is a sacrifice worth making to work toward that greater dedication.

It'd be interesting to see the differences in abilities and numbers - lay ministers vs. fully dedicated.

Perhaps that's the easy way out - change the ratio, increase the duties, create a new class of ministers...

It's hard for a guy that has always been part of an independent church to grasp the concept of a vast hierarchical organization like the RCC.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

lay minister

is that what it sounds like

 

[historian]

To be honest, and to go back to previous things and topics. WHY THE HECK DOESN'T THE RCC ACTUALLY DISCIPLINE THESE PEOPLE!!!!!!

I mean, the new scandal and what did the church do? THEY CLOSED THE CLOISTER!!!! It wasn't the Nun's fault!!!!!!! This is the thinking that makes it absurd!!!! If a priest and a nun want to do the deed, then FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, LEAVE!!!! When it is found out? KICK THEM OUT!!!!!! I don't get this mealy mouthed "mistakes were made" kind of thinking in the church. Be HOLY (per your rules) or DON'T!! I keep seeing this "well...but...maybe..." thinking in what should be black and white!

Sorry, but I have an historical tinge to this so I'm still thinking about a bunch of babies in the bottom of wells.

 

[historian]

I do believe that. At the risk of sounding liberal, doesn't Paul write in I Cor. 7 that, paraphrasing, "if you can't keep it in your pants, keep it in your marriage?"


There's manifold sex scandals now, as to the pedophilia, let's agree that marriage ain't gonna fix it. But the nuns and abortion? You can at least admit that if they could freely marry, have children, use contraception (gasp!), and still be a nun, that's a win-win scenario for some people. Looking at it from the outside, it seems reasonable. Now sure, the roles would change, you can't be married and totally dedicated to the church, but there has to be some in-between for those that want to be in the RCC, but also want to take skin boat to tuna town.

Or...maybe, just hear me out...Don't be a nun? I mean, that is an option that is available. Just throwing it out there.

 

[T.Lex]

@historian

I'm still trying to wrap my head around that whole debacle, too. Like, I didn't even know that order had been closed, let alone why. So, I've got no direct response to that.

In terms of discipline in the more (regrettably) "normal" situation of a priest's sexual misconduct, there were many cases that were disciplined. But, they weren't really publicized and so the perpetrator just moved. Since the Boston revelations, and the reforms that came with it, there is - in my experience - an objectively and subjectively better system for deterring, monitoring, and disciplining both priests and the laity.

@jetta

I think there's 2 different issues. That the church's tradition is to have the primary pastoral duties performed by non-marrying priests is certainly open to biblical interpretation and debate. And, the most basic answer is one that I absolutely hate in almost every other context. "Because that's the way we do it."

In my experience, there's really no support for the idea that trading away the tradition will somehow magically create a disincentive for really terrible, sinful behavior. Maybe its because I've seen the worst of people in the population at large, too, but I just don't see any evidence that marriage eradicates one's worst qualities.

So, the response of "let them marry" won't do anything to address the stated problem, and could end up diluting the effectiveness of the priesthood overall.

And again, there are other roles for married men to have in the church. The deaconate is a great example of how a married man get to within a half-step or so of "priesthood" and still be married.

Oh, and yeah - the RCC bureaucracy is crazy. To recycle a past punch line, it is downright... byzantine.

 

[rvb]

thanks to a COMPLETELY boneheaded reference made by JettaKnight I was reading some commentary on Noah and the incident with his son Ham. I was shocked at the number of commentaries google presented that accused Ham of homosexual/incestuous relations, basically raping his father while he was passed out. I don't think that fits the story in context at all. However, I did discover some commentary that tied the situation to Leviticus 20:11, saying the implication of Ham who "saw the nakedness of his father" is that Ham slept with Noah's wife (his mother), and that this might explain the harshness of Noah's response. Leviticus 20:11 saying "the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness."

Again, I don't think that fits the story's context, with the other brothers then simply covering Noah with a garment. In Lev 20:11 I think the nakedness reference is more about the level of embarrassment. Regardless, I found the link of scripture interesting enough to make a note in my bible app...

-rvb

 

[Dead Duck]

thanks to a COMPLETELY boneheaded reference made by JettaKnight I was reading some commentary on Noah and the incident with his son Ham. I was shocked at the number of commentaries google presented that accused Ham of homosexual/incestuous relations, basically raping his father while he was passed out. I don't think that fits the story in context at all. However, I did discover some commentary that tied the situation to Leviticus 20:11, saying the implication of Ham who "saw the nakedness of his father" is that Ham slept with Noah's wife (his mother), and that this might explain the harshness of Noah's response. Leviticus 20:11 saying "the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness."

Again, I don't think that fits the story's context, with the other brothers then simply covering Noah with a garment. In Lev 20:11 I think the nakedness reference is more about the level of embarrassment. Regardless, I found the link of scripture interesting enough to make a note in my bible app...

-rvb

Where do you think the word "Hambone" came from.

 

[historian]

@historian

I'm still trying to wrap my head around that whole debacle, too. Like, I didn't even know that order had been closed, let alone why. So, I've got no direct response to that.

In terms of discipline in the more (regrettably) "normal" situation of a priest's sexual misconduct, there were many cases that were disciplined. But, they weren't really publicized and so the perpetrator just moved. Since the Boston revelations, and the reforms that came with it, there is - in my experience - an objectively and subjectively better system for deterring, monitoring, and disciplining both priests and the laity.

@jetta

I think there's 2 different issues. That the church's tradition is to have the primary pastoral duties performed by non-marrying priests is certainly open to biblical interpretation and debate. And, the most basic answer is one that I absolutely hate in almost every other context. "Because that's the way we do it."

In my experience, there's really no support for the idea that trading away the tradition will somehow magically create a disincentive for really terrible, sinful behavior. Maybe its because I've seen the worst of people in the population at large, too, but I just don't see any evidence that marriage eradicates one's worst qualities.

So, the response of "let them marry" won't do anything to address the stated problem, and could end up diluting the effectiveness of the priesthood overall.

And again, there are other roles for married men to have in the church. The deaconate is a great example of how a married man get to within a half-step or so of "priesthood" and still be married.

Oh, and yeah - the RCC bureaucracy is crazy. To recycle a past punch line, it is downright... byzantine.

I guess my point is that I agree with you on that the celibate priesthood is important to RCC tradition. I don't oppose doing away with it. I just think there needs to be an even better screening process. I'm not talking about the illegal (in all contexts and denominations) behavior per se, but rather just the basics of "keep it in your pants." It seems that there are these high profile events that occur, but for all of these scandals, there has to be a high number of non-scandalous events that are still against church teaching. I can't imagine that there are only two groups of priests: The really good ones who follow all the rules and complete degenerates. There has to be a large number in between that we don't know about because they are "only" sleeping with women consentually.

 

[T.Lex]

I guess my point is that I agree with you on that the celibate priesthood is important to RCC tradition. I don't oppose doing away with it. I just think there needs to be an even better screening process. I'm not talking about the illegal (in all contexts and denominations) behavior per se, but rather just the basics of "keep it in your pants." It seems that there are these high profile events that occur, but for all of these scandals, there has to be a high number of non-scandalous events that are still against church teaching. I can't imagine that there are only two groups of priests: The really good ones who follow all the rules and complete degenerates. There has to be a large number in between that we don't know about because they are "only" sleeping with women consentually.

Taking it out of the realm of sexual misconduct, only because I think that can be a smokescreen, the slippery slope includes other sins.

Priests - at least around here - aren't required to take a vow of poverty or anything, so they receive a stipend from the church along with whatever money they had (or can make) beyond that. That's their money. They can do with it whatever they wish. Just not quite sure a Corvette Stingray (at least it wasn't the Z version) provides a clear enough distance from pride or gluttony (perhaps even inviting others to the sin of envy).

All priests are sinners, just like the rest of us. Sure, there's a sliding scale.

I am aware of one relatively recent instance of a young priest and similiarly-aged woman (both were twenty-somethings) developing a particularly close friendship, bordering on intimacy. There were rumors (which, rumormongering being another sin), but I choose to believe neither acted on it in any way that would deviate from his vows. He requested - and received - a transfer to a completely different country. And I think she moved on, too.

I'm sure it was painful for them to sacrifice a deeper relationship in favor of other principles, but that's what they decided to do. We could probably deconstruct to what extent there may have been sinful thoughts, or whatever. Perhaps even sins by consenting adults.

But, to me, that falls on the less-than-degenerate end of the spectrum. For all I know, maybe he did breach his vows, and was actually sent away to a different country as discipline. My point is that there is a system in place for even the non-scandalous (or minorly scandalous) events.

The BIG cases, properly, get much attention though, in part because it is related to the RCC.

 

[rvb]

Where do you think the word "Hambone" came from.

?????

[video=youtube;YMJeaZtgwng]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMJeaZtgwng[/video]

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[ArcadiaGP]