Catholic priest joins Episcopal Church to be with woman he loves.

hollyanglo · Jul 7, 2009

ContraMundum said:
Vows made in violation of God's laws cannot be valid. The vow of celibacy is of men, not of God.

We believe that a man or woman in Christian liberty can take such a vow, but if he cannot fulfill it, he has broken a vow of men, not a law of God. If he chooses to marry, he is doing something commended by God. God judges according to His laws, not according to man's ordinances.

I beg to differ with the above quote. Celibacy is not in violation of God's law. My bible is gathering dust, but I know that God expects us to honour our vows, hence Jesus actually discouraged this and instead advised us to let our yes to be yes and no to be no. He knew how difficult it is for humans to keep their word. The rule might have been man made, but the vow was made to God; just like the marriage vows are man made.

MKJ · Jul 7, 2009

The Bible doesn't tell people that they are required to marry. Nor does tradition. Monastics have for thousands of years taken vows of chastity, and those who find themselves unmarried also are, rather by default, called to chastity.

Should priests be required to make vows of chastity? I don't think so. But there is a place for those who choose to serve in this way, whether as missionaries, scholars, or monks. Celibacy allows a person to dedicate themselves to certain aspects of God's work in a way that a married person often can't. Tradition, reason, and scripture all support some version of this model.

Now, Fr Cutie - I suspect that he was rather sneaky about his "relationship." Of course I don't know, but this is a man who called a press conference and announced that he was joining TEC without the courtesy to tell his own Bishop before hand. At the very least a rather thoughtless and unkind thing to do, or perhaps cowardly - at worst vain and self-seeking and underhanded.

Additionally - this man was involved with a woman for over two years, knowing that it was against the rules. Why did he not remove himself from his position? He must have realized that if nothing else, it could cause scandal and be a stumbling block to others. And why did he only announce his new convictions about his faith after he was caught, and not before. Two years seems rather a long time to live in a state which he had agreed to avoid. If he was having difficulties, why did he not discuss them with his Bishop? Did he lie in confession?

There are a great many questions about this man's suitability for a leadership position. I have no problem with the TEC accepting him as lay member, although I think there is often much to be gained by having a waiting period between when a new member first gives intent to join and is actually accepted. But to immediatly allow him to take on the role of a deacon with the expectation to become a priest in a year, seems bizarre to me, given the circumstances under which he left his former position.

hollyanglo · Jul 8, 2009

ContraMundum said:
The post I was replying to was somehow insinuating that the priest who broke the vows he made to the RCC was going to judged by God for that. I doubt it, because it is pretty clear in many, many places in scripture that God wills that men and women marry and have children. In fact, the first commandment given to man was about that. So, it is my point that God won't judge a person a sinner for something He never declared a sin.

Secondly, St Paul thinks someone should marry when they are in love- rather than burn (as he says).

Actually, I disagree. Christianity is about forgiveness and second chances- not about "one mistake scars you for life". I commend the TEC (first time ever) for taking this man in and celebrating the gift of marriage. If he gets to exercise his ministry at some point, then well and good. I don't think a man falling in love with a woman should ever stop him being a minister of the Gospel.

BUT BREAKING A VOW IS A SIN. THE PRINCIPLE HERE IS NOT ABOUT CELIBACY; BUT ABOUT A VOW MADE IN FRONT OF GOD, WITH THE CHURCH AS WITNESS. PAUL ACTUALLY DID ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO REMAIN CELIBATE

hollyanglo · Jul 8, 2009

higgs2 said:
That is not what she said.

who is this leader? I was not aware that there is a "leader" in the Anglican church? By the way, can you say with absolute certainty that his/her statement was "wrong".

Lets stick to the isasue at hand people.

ContraMundum · Jul 8, 2009

hollyanglo said:
I beg to differ with the above quote. Celibacy is not in violation of God's law.

Forcing celibacy or making it a condition to receive a sacrament is indeed a violation of God's will.

First ever commandment Gen 1:28- And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth

1Ti 4:1 But the Spirit expressly says that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and teachings of demons,
2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, being seared in their own conscience,
3 forbidding to marry, saying to abstain from foods which God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

My bible is gathering dust, but I know that God expects us to honour our vows, hence Jesus actually discouraged this and instead advised us to let our yes to be yes and no to be no. He knew how difficult it is for humans to keep their word. The rule might have been man made, but the vow was made to God; just like the marriage vows are man made.

A vow made against the above scriptures is not a lawful vow to God- it is merely a vow to man. You might find it encouraging to check out the history of celibacy.

ContraMundum · Jul 8, 2009

hollyanglo said:
BUT BREAKING A VOW IS A SIN. THE PRINCIPLE HERE IS NOT ABOUT CELIBACY; BUT ABOUT A VOW MADE IN FRONT OF GOD, WITH THE CHURCH AS WITNESS. PAUL ACTUALLY DID ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO REMAIN CELIBATE

The vow is not a vow God has commanded, and goes against His clear command. This is simple scripture.

When we have a positive commandment such as "go forth and multiply" or "do not forbid marriage" or stated principles like "marriage is honourable to all" or "He who finds a wife finds what is good and gains honour from the Lord" etc we know God likes something and wants us to do it, if at all possible. This is simple.

If some guys come along and say "take a vow of celibacy or you cannot have the sacrament of Holy Orders" and then say "swear it before God", this is clearly man made. If God sends this man a wife later on, and he accepts this, then God has done a good work. The vow before men was not in God's will in the first place.

Now, you say "but he made a vow and that means he cannot break it or he is in sin and will go to Hell (the place of sinners)". This of course is nonsense, for two reasons. A man can make a vow to be a Freemason, but when he becomes a Christian- is his breaking of the vow a sin? It was, according to Masonic ideals, made before God.

Likewise, there is a principle that states when a positive commandment and a negative commandment clash, the positive one overrules the negative. For example, it is forbidden to draw blood on the Sabbath, but if your son is born on a Friday, he must be circumcised on the following Sabbath. What to do? Well, in this case, the circumcision can go ahead because of the higher principle of a positive commandment, and this has been the practice since the start among the faithful Jews. So, if a man makes a vow that God hasn't commanded him to make, even if done in God's name, to be married is a positive commandment that brings abundant blessings and thus it overrules the vow invented by men. Christ speaks a lot about this principle in other cases when he speaks about the Sabbath to the legalists of His time. Check out the Sabbath controversies in the Gospels.

Besides, I hate to state the obvious, but even the Catholic Church allows men and women to get released from the vow of celibacy by special dispensation all the time. They at no stage consider themselves to be complicit in a sin by doing so.

So, it's really only a sin in the minds of a few in the laity.

This is a no brainer to me.

hollyanglo · Jul 8, 2009

ContraMundum said:
The vow is not a vow God has commanded, and goes against His clear command. This is simple scripture.

When we have a positive commandment such as "go forth and multiply" or "do not forbid marriage" or stated principles like "marriage is honourable to all" or "He who finds a wife finds what is good and gains honour from the Lord" etc we know God likes something and wants us to do it, if at all possible. This is simple.

If some guys come along and say "take a vow of celibacy or you cannot have the sacrament of Holy Orders" and then say "swear it before God", this is clearly man made. If God sends this man a wife later on, and he accepts this, then God has done a good work. The vow before men was not in God's will in the first place.

Now, you say "but he made a vow and that means he cannot break it or he is in sin and will go to Hell (the place of sinners)". This of course is nonsense, for two reasons. A man can make a vow to be a Freemason, but when he becomes a Christian- is his breaking of the vow a sin? It was, according to Masonic ideals, made before God.

Likewise, there is a principle that states when a positive commandment and a negative commandment clash, the positive one overrules the negative. For example, it is forbidden to draw blood on the Sabbath, but if your son is born on a Friday, he must be circumcised on the following Sabbath. What to do? Well, in this case, the circumcision can go ahead because of the higher principle of a positive commandment, and this has been the practice since the start among the faithful Jews. So, if a man makes a vow that God hasn't commanded him to make, even if done in God's name, to be married is a positive commandment that brings abundant blessings and thus it overrules the vow invented by men. Christ speaks a lot about this principle in other cases when he speaks about the Sabbath to the legalists of His time. Check out the Sabbath controversies in the Gospels.

Besides, I hate to state the obvious, but even the Catholic Church allows men and women to get released from the vow of celibacy by special dispensation all the time. They at no stage consider themselves to be complicit in a sin by doing so.

So, it's really only a sin in the minds of a few in the laity.

This is a no brainer to me.

You are right when you say, this is a no brainer. the bible is very open to the idea of celibacy, which according to my little understanding each church was free to implement as it saw fit. I keep getting quoted the "be fruitful...statement" here, what about Paul's recommendation for people to remain celibate? The issue was open and I believe the RCC had a right to decide what they wanted to make of this issue. The priest in question knew exactly what he was doing when he took the vow. to tell you the truth, i think the vow thing is not the sole reason he left the church. He seems very dodgy to me.

if the RCC does release people from this vow, why did this priest not go that route?

ContraMundum · Jul 9, 2009

hollyanglo said:
You are right when you say, this is a no brainer. the bible is very open to the idea of celibacy, which according to my little understanding each church was free to implement as it saw fit I keep getting quoted the "be fruitful...statement" here, what about Paul's recommendation for people to remain celibate? .

Context is important here. Paul also heartily encouraged marriage. The context of Paul's statements are particular to a situation he was part of, whereas God's commandment was to all mankind.

The issue was open and I believe the RCC had a right to decide what they wanted to make of this issue. The priest in question knew exactly what he was doing when he took the vow. to tell you the truth, i think the vow thing is not the sole reason he left the church. He seems very dodgy to me.

Well, of course a person is free to be celibate if they are in a situation where they feel it is their calling. However, enforced celibacy is anti-scriptural. This is the whole point. There is no command anywhere in scripture that says the clergy must be celibate. It was never the universal practice of the church and more than once Popes had to enforce it on married clergy.

This is the difference- God says marriage is a blessing. Some are called to celibacy- whether it is meant to be lifelong or not is debatable. The clerical celibacy argument is weak and enforcing it by way of vow is a teaching of men, not of God.

Mat 5:33 Again, you have heard that it has been said to the ancients, "You shall not swear falsely, but you shall perform your oaths to the Lord."
34 But I say to you, Do not swear at all! Not by Heaven, because it is God's throne;
35 not by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet; not by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King;
36 nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.
37 But let your word be, Yes, yes; No, no. For whatever is more than these comes from evil.

if the RCC does release people from this vow, why did this priest not go that route?

Perhaps he doesn't want to remain RC.

LivingWordUnity · Jul 19, 2009

ContraMundum said:
Well, of course a person is free to be celibate if they are in a situation where they feel it is their calling. However, enforced celibacy is anti-scriptural.

Everyone has a choice of either accepting the authority of Rome to teach and provide guidance in matters of faith, morals, and discipline or rejecting it and going somewhere else.
.

Timothy · Jul 19, 2009

LivingWordUnity said:
Everyone has a choice of either accepting the authority of Rome to teach and provide guidance in matters of faith, morals, and discipline or rejecting it and going somewhere else.
.

Of course. But remember from the Anglican perspective, Rome's authority is illegaly usurped from local autocephalous bishops and thus Rome is in error in trying to force what is rather more than 'guidance'. We recognise Pope Benedict as a bishop and world-class theologian, but would tend to point out that his position over a large church is antiscriptural and goes against the Early Church Fathers and the practice of the historic church including our branch of it--the Celtic Orthodox. You're in the Anglican forum--you should be aware of that.

LivingWordUnity · Jul 19, 2009

SirTimothy said:
You're in the Anglican forum--you should be aware of that.

Even though this thread includes the subjects of both Anglicanism and Catholicism, all I said is that everyone has a choice. I did not argue against Anglicanism. By the way, do you know if there ever been a thread on this created in OBOB?
.

calluna · Jul 19, 2009

LivingWordUnity said:
Everyone has a choice of either accepting the authority of Rome to teach and provide guidance in matters of faith, morals, and discipline or rejecting it and going somewhere else.
.

People have the choice of rejecting it, period, and vast numbers have done so in recent years. They do not have to go 'somewhere else'- but this man did so, having remained with Rome, with Rome's apparent collusion, while flagrantly flouting its authority. That says a great deal about this man, but a great deal more about Rome and its true motives, none of it acceptable to a body that makes the most adventurous of claims for authority. But then Rome has always turned a blind eye to fatal criticism, where it has not turned to 'persuasion' of a very basic kind. Rome is the original dead man walking, and has been for nearly 700 years.

It also says a great deal about the people who accepted this man as a leader, without question. However, since that body now effectively makes no claim for authority of any sort, it probably hardly matters- except to confirm its status.

LivingWordUnity · Jul 19, 2009

calluna said:
People have the choice of rejecting it, period, and vast numbers have done so in recent years. They do not have to go 'somewhere else'- but this man did so, having remained with Rome, with Rome's apparent collusion, while flagrantly flouting its authority. That says a great deal about this man, but a great deal more about Rome and its true motives, none of it acceptable to a body that makes the most adventurous of claims for authority. But then Rome has always turned a blind eye to fatal criticism, where it has not turned to 'persuasion' of a very basic kind. Rome is the original dead man walking, and has been for nearly 700 years.

It also says a great deal about the people who accepted this man as a leader, without question. However, since that body now effectively makes no claim for authority of any sort, it probably hardly matters- except to confirm its status.

Everyone also has their opinion.

No Swansong · Jul 19, 2009

LivingWordUnity said:
Even though this thread includes the subjects of both Anglicanism and Catholicism, all I said is that everyone has a choice. I did not argue against Anglicanism. By the way, do you know if there ever been a thread on this created in OBOB?
.

I have no idea but I know it has been a subject discussed on other Catholic boards.

JeCrois · Jul 20, 2009

Mod Hat on

Some posts in this thread have been cleaned. Please remember while debate is ok flaming is against the site rules.

Mod Hat off

Catholic priest joins Episcopal Church to be with woman he loves.

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Messianic Jewish Christian

Messianic Jewish Christian

Newbie

Messianic Jewish Christian

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic

Mad Anglican geek at large

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic

Regular Member

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic

Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!

Je Crois (zshuh kwah) = 'I believe'

Similar threads