Questions regarding Catholic decision making

[Shane Roach]

What is a "mortal sin", first of all? And mainly, what I was wanting here was a forum on exactly how the Roman Cathloic Church is organized, on what basis its administrators derive their authority over believers, and so forth.

I originally got to thinking on this talking to VOW on a different thread about why Priests are to remain celibate, where I see no such mandate for this in the Bible and also the possibility at least of real harm to the structure of the Church due to the strain this places on the mechanisms of trying to find decent, able leadership for the Catholic Church. So, anyone wanting to add to VOW's already very helpful thoughts on that subject I would really appreciate it.

I guess my most fundamental concern is that it seems that tradition has taken precedence over practical applications in the Cathlic church, from my persepctive as a nominal protestant who believes that unity within Christ's people is very important. I don't even really like to call myself "Protestant", just "Christian", but for the sake of transparency let me just add I am a member of both the United Methodist Church and the First Baptist.

I want to understand how the Cathlic Church came to the conclusion that its present system of selcting leadership from among a celibate priesthood rather than the more open and seemingly pragmatic system of selecting leadership simply from among whoever lives an honorable life and whose actions and behavior show evidence of the workings of the Holy Spirit in their lives was the way intended from tradition? I forget what VOW called it, but apparently both the Bible and Tradition are part of the full package of the church handed down by the Aposltes. But the Apostles some were married. Why the change?

 

[nyj]

Originally posted by Shane Roach
What is a "mortal sin", first of all?

A mortal sin is a sin which, if committed and left unrepented, will send a soul to hell upon death. In order for it to be a mortal sin, it must have been committed with full knowledge of the damage this sin could cause, it must be done willingly (not under duress), and must be grave matter (ie: murder, adultery, fornication, etc).

I originally got to thinking on this talking to VOW on a different thread about why Priests are to remain celibate, where I see no such mandate for this in the Bible and also the possibility at least of real harm to the structure of the Church due to the strain this places on the mechanisms of trying to find decent, able leadership for the Catholic Church.

Most priests take a vow of celibacy, because they feel called to do so. Not because the Church forces them to do it. Second, I don't see how the fact that the Church chooses most of it's priests from the pool of those who wish to be eunuchs for the kingdom puts a strain on them being able to find decent, able leadership. You have any examples you'd like to point out that would indicate otherwise?


I guess my most fundamental concern is that it seems that tradition has taken precedence over practical applications in the Cathlic church, from my persepctive as a nominal protestant who believes that unity within Christ's people is very important.


A nominal protestant? Does this mean you're a nominal Christian as well? I don't understand that comment at all.


I don't even really like to call myself "Protestant", just "Christian", but for the sake of transparency let me just add I am a member of both the United Methodist Church and the First Baptist.


How can you be a member of both? They have views on Christian doctrine which do not agree at all.



I want to understand how the Cathlic Church came to the conclusion that its present system of selcting leadership from among a celibate priesthood rather than the more open and seemingly pragmatic system of selecting leadership simply from among whoever lives an honorable life and whose actions and behavior show evidence of the workings of the Holy Spirit in their lives was the way intended from tradition?


First of all, Paul says that the charism of leadership extends from the Holy Spirit, that the Church selects men with this charism is both biblical and traditional. Second of all, you criticise the Catholic Church for this practice, yet the Orthodox faith does it as well. Were you aware of that?

I forget what VOW called it, but apparently both the Bible and Tradition are part of the full package of the church handed down by the Aposltes. But the Apostles some were married. Why the change?

And some Catholic priests are married as well. So what's your point?

 

[LilyLamb]

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul writes that it is "good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman" ... but if sexual sin is a danger then each should have his own wife or her own husband ... yet, Paul wishes that "everyone were like me, but each person has his own gift from God. One has one gift, another has another gift."

For those who are widowed he says, "it is good for them to stay unmarried as I am" But if they cannot control themselves then they should marry ....

He goes on further to say, "Now I write about people who are not married. I have no command from the Lord about this; I give my opinion. But I can be trusted, because the Lord has shown me mercy. The present time is a time of trouble, so I think it is good for you to stay the way you are." Then he goes on to say that if you do marry, it is not a sin - "but those who marry will have trouble in this life, and I want you to be free from trouble."

"I want you to be free from worry. A man who is not married is busy with the Lord's work, trying to please the Lord. But a man who is married is busy with the things of the world, trying to please his wife. He must think about two things - pleasing his wife and pleasing the Lord."

"A woman who is not married ... is busy with the Lord's work. She wants to be holy in body and spirit. But a married woman is busy with things of the world, as to how she can please her husband."

"I am saying this to help you, not to limit you. But I want you to live in the right way, to give yourselves fully to the Lord without concern for other things."

"... if a man is sure in his mind that there is no need for marriage, and has his desires under control, adn has decided not to marry ... he is doing the right thing. So the man who marries his girl does right, BUT THE MAN WHO DOES NOT MARRY WILL DO BETTER."

"This is my opinion, but I believe I also have God's Spirit."

Although this is not a commandment from God, we can see evidence of how well this worked in both the Old and New testament scriptures - most of the prophets were not married (Hosea was one exception, called to marry a prostitute) - John the Baptist was not married, Jesus was not married, most of the disciples were not married and here we have one who STRONGLY encourages that IF you are CALLED to serve God you can better please Him if you are NOT married.

Someone who CHOOSES to be a priest is married to GOD and not the world.

So ... really ... where's the beef???

 

[Shane Roach]

Thanks for your attention first off!

Most priests take a vow of celibacy, because they feel called to do so. Not because the Church forces them to do it. Second, I don't see how the fact that the Church chooses most of it's priests from the pool of those who wish to be eunuchs for the kingdom puts a strain on them being able to find decent, able leadership. You have any examples you'd like to point out that would indicate otherwise?

Well for example, several of the Apostles would have been excluded from service by this requirement. It appears too much emphasis has been placed on celibacy, given that fact.


A nominal protestant? Does this mean you're a nominal Christian as well? I don't understand that comment at all.

I believe in one universal church, or people of God. Since I am not Cathlic and since the only other commonly understood label for me appears to be "Protestant", I answer to that label.

How can you be a member of both? They have views on Christian doctrine which do not agree at all.

Indeed they do, but membership does not imply perfect adherence to church doctrine, so they allow such things. In practice, there's less divergence in the two church's than one might think.


First of all, Paul says that the charism of leadership extends from the Holy Spirit, that the Church selects men with this charism is both biblical and traditional. Second of all, you criticise the Catholic Church for this practice, yet the Orthodox faith does it as well. Were you aware of that?

I would stop short of criticizing the Cathlic Church, since I don't even understand it as yet. For instance, you say that some Priests are married, and I was unaware that this was allowed. I am almost completely ignorant of Orthodox faith tenets, since you ask.

In any event, I have read elsewhere that the requirement or near requirement for Cathlic priesthood of celibacy was introduces in the 1200's? Is that so? And what was the reasoning behind that particular decision? I am familiar with the teaching that it is better, if a person can contain, to remain celibate as it allows a more full dedication to things spiritual without the concessions the world is often able to get from us when we have the responsability of a family, but to make celibacy a requirement limits the choice of available leadership, and it's hard not to see some of the problems experienced by the Catholic priesthood regarding honoring this vow as evidence that it is perhaps asking too much of people. Not to even remotely imply that Catholic Priests have a lock on problems with sex, as we are all well aware of sexual immorality among the protestant leadership as well. There is a perception that I have though, perhaps false, that the Catholic church is having more problems with its Priests in this regard than the Protestants are.

 

[VOW]

To Shane:

There is a perception that I have though, perhaps false, that the Catholic church is having more problems with its Priests in this regard than the Protestants are.

I'm inclined to think that it's a more PUBLICIZED problem with Catholic priests. It makes a better media food, because the priests are supposed to be "above sex."

Then, too, much of the publicity is from accusations of misconduct that occurred years ago. The Church has handled the situation very poorly in the past, and it is just now that those abused feel like they can come forward, tell their stories, and be believed.

Unfortunately, too, with any publicity, you get a "monkey see, monkey do" attitude where folks will come forward with false accusations, as well.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by LilyLamb
Although this is not a commandment from God, we can see evidence of how well this worked in both the Old and New testament scriptures - most of the prophets were not married (Hosea was one exception, called to marry a prostitute) - John the Baptist was not married, Jesus was not married, most of the disciples were not married and here we have one who STRONGLY encourages that IF you are CALLED to serve God you can better please Him if you are NOT married.

Someone who CHOOSES to be a priest is married to GOD and not the world.

So ... really ... where's the beef???

No beef! No beef! Please, I do not want to imply at all that I have some sort of higher understanding and that the whole Catholic Church is in error and needs to listen to me. I am simply trying to understand the decision. You list prophets who were single, but David was married (too many times in fact), Abraham, ISaac, Jacob, really I imagine the majority of Biblical figures who held leadership roles in their times were married. And the Levitical Priesthood were married. I do understand and acknowledge the superiority of the single, celibate life but what I am asking is, far before celibacy, there are other matters more important, it seems, and exalting celibacy to a near pre-requisite shortens considerably the list of people who have these more important qualifications that will be able to join the Priesthood, and also sets up an entire subculture of hiding even so much as normal sexuality within the Priesthood, which in turn can't help but benefit those who have abnormal sexual problems.

There is just an appearance here of too much emphasis being laid on sex and celibacy to the detriment of the overall Church body.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by VOW
I'm inclined to think that it's a more PUBLICIZED problem with Catholic priests. It makes a better media food, because the priests are supposed to be "above sex."

I am aware and very sensitive to this possibility as well. If one believes, as I do, in an active spiritual world where Satan and his servants work to undermine the Church, what could be more productive for them than to paint the Church as a bunch of twisted hypocrites. If the celibacy issue is a mistake, as I believe it is, it is nonetheless an honest one, most of which is clearly understandable in light of the many ideas already expressed here as to why celibacy is a very high and noble calling for any Christian, priest or not.

 

[VOW]

To Shane:

There is just an appearance here of too much emphasis being laid on sex and celibacy to the detriment of the overall Church body.

Truthfully, this very topic is often discussed by the Church hierarchy, for the very same reasons you mention. The number of men responding to the calling of the priesthood is dropping, and there are many parishes in the United States without a priest in residence. There are places in the world where a Catholic congregation is without a priest, and the Church considers this to be a true crisis.

Many homilies are given from the pulpit about vocations. Dioceses make sure that people have information made available to them about working in God's service. You really can't "recruit" though, and you certainly can't DRAFT anyone into the priesthood. This very same argument you present about celibacy is also one that is used to promote the consideration for allowing women into the priesthood.

The Magisterium is not deaf and blind; input and discussion is certainly permitted. But again, the Church is not a democracy. Nobody "votes" on how the Church might bend its teachings to accommodate the members. The Pope listens to his advisors, he studies, the Magisterium studies, and everybody prays. But ultimately, the ruling of the Church is done by the sole voice of the Pope, under the guidance of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Shane Roach]

In the Methodist church, the one which I am most familiar with, we have basically Deacons and Elders. The upper structure of the church is chosen from the Elders. So, usually for example, a minister is an Elder who got to the position of Elder by following the prescribied educational and I guess "liturgical" requirements.

Can you give me a rough idea of how the Catholic church is organized as far as how leadership is selected?

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by VOW
This very same argument you present about celibacy is also one that is used to promote the consideration for allowing women into the priesthood.

That's kind of interesting. There is at least the appearance of some scriptural and traditional support forbidding women certain roles in the church, but then we have one female Judge in Israel, at least one female prophet. I'll look for the names if you like, right now I can't remember. I am not terribly in the know about exactly what would be a proper role for women in church leadership, and my feeling on the matter is a woman should lead wherever she finds her leadership doesn't undermine the faith of those she is ostensibly leading, but not to take a position of leadership out of some sort of feminist agenda or out of personal pride. The difficulty then of course is how do we judge the motives of a person? Ultimately we are left only with the Bible's suggestion that you judge a person by their fruit, I suppose.

You've mentioned two or three times in the course of our discussions that the church is not a democracy. The spritual church is most decidedly a Monarchy! My concern though is that a certain amount of open communication, and yes, paying attention to the thoughts and ideas of the people of God en masse, might be a more effective way to measure the will of the Holy Spirit in terms of church structure, and I think there's a strong support for this in both the scripture and in tradition, although obviously I am in no position to judge Holy Tradition in the Roman Catholic sense of the phrase.

It was interesting to me to learn that Israel left off being ruled by judges raised up by God and became a kingdom because the people rose up and wanted this. God warned that kings would rule over them abusively, but they insisted, and God Himself willingly gave them over to their "democratic" will. I guess ultimately it really matters none at all how men choose to organize themselves, as God will have His way no matter.

 

[Dave Ulchers]

Originally posted by Shane Roach
What is a "mortal sin", first of all?

The Catechism explains that a mortal sin is a willful turning away from God. Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent, and its object must be a "grave matter", that is: corresponding to Jesus's answer to the rich young man.

on what basis its administrators derive their authority over believers, and so forth.

I don't think the hierarchy has any authority over believers. I could be wrong?

 

[Shane Roach]

Posted originally by Dave Ulchers in a different thread:
Isn't that kind of bizzare? I mean, if you reject the RCC as the one true Church of God, run off and preach the Protestant heresies for a few years, get married, then you can become a married priest. But if you are true to the Church the whole time, and get married, forget about it.

Exactly! See from outside the Cathlic Church this seems odd.

I wasn't aware, as a protestant, that I believed that faith without hope or charity is alive and not dead, as you speak of in that post in "Early Church and sex" or what ever it was called? I'm not even sure where that comes from? Much like the Catholic church, much has changed in the various protestant denominations since the reformation period. Perhaps you are applying old dogma to present beliefs?

And I didn't think of you as protestant bashing, btw. Somewhere there has to be a forum for open, honest discussion of differences, and the word "heretic", while frightening perhaps, must be allowed and applied as the user understands it in order for us all to understand each others concerns.

Cheers!

 

[Dave Ulchers]

I'm not even sure where that comes from?

I know where it comes from. It comes from some confusion which was originally cleared up nearly 2000 years ago, which IMHO, Luther managed to resurrect. One of the problems in the early church was whether or not Gentile converts had to be circumcised. St. Paul, in his explanation as to why they do not need to be circumsized makes the statement that the believer is justified "by faith, not works." Despite the fact that Paul makes clear elsewhere that man is judged by his works, and his declaration that a man is nothing without charity, and all that Jesus says on the topic, there must have been some confusion, and as Paul's letters, such as Romans, were circulating widely we can imagine, no less than St. James, leader of the Jerusalem congregation, wrote a point by point clarification of some of the misinterpretations of Romans which we know as the letter of James, in which he makes it clear that charity is a part of the faith. And the matter was settled for over a thousand years.

Luther, being very clever, managed to convince people that you could cut a verse out of a chapter and it would stand alone in isolation. So even though Paul is clearly talking about circumcision in Romans Luther convinces many that charity is not a virtue, but at best a recommendation, because "faith not works." He wanted to get rid of James's letter, and I think many Protestants think James being in the Bible is some mistake, written by God-only-knows-who, with no real authority.

The other half of the general Protestant heresy is faith without hope. Because Protestantism teaches a purely "intellectual" faith, they have as a corollary the idea that an individual's salvation, devoid of merit as it might be, is guaranteed. Luther taught that you could murder a thousand people a day, but still go to heaven as long as your faith is strong enough, for example. This is often explained as an almost blasphemous reworking of the theology of substitutionary atonement, by which a person can sin all they want but when looked upon by God, who is willfully ignorant of the truth, God sees Jesus instead. This all is contrary to hope, because salvation is no longer something to hope for, but a guarantee.

End of rant for now!

Of course, you are right that some people, out of force of habit in a way, really don't believe all that but are only Protestants in a schismatic sense by rejecting the Pope, rather than in a theological heretical sense. Or perhaps they have other problems with Catholic teaching. But generally when I say Protestant (and then turn my head and spit) I mean someone who follows the above errors.

These people are alive and well and posting in a forum closer than you think. I wish it were only old dogma!

 

[hopeee]

Hi, it's nice to meet you.... I don't think this answers your question, but I wanted to jump in and voice my own opinion. I am Catholic...I consider myself Christian. Other Catholics would probably say that I was a Liberal Catholic, because I don't agree with all of the Church Rules... I think Catholic Priests should be able to marry if they want to. I don't agree with the Church's rule that Priests can't marry. I personally think it is self defeating... I see nothing wrong with Priests getting married..... Hope

 

[hopeee]

Shane, How can you be both Methodist and Baptist? Hope

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by hope
Shane, How can you be both Methodist and Baptist? Hope

The short answer is "by joining both churches". The proces of "joining" either of these churches is actually very basic. You confess Christ in public by affirming out loud in front of witnesses one of the statements of faith. Goodness I am drawing a blank and they are rediculously well known. Anyhow it is an "Affirmation of faith". Then you are Baptised. Baptists insist on dunking, Methodists allow but don't require it. So that was no problem. Other disagreements, such as whether or not there ie predestiny or such a thing as "losing your salvation" and such are not brought up initially, and niether denomination at this point excludes members from holding a view on these types of matters contrary to the standard church doctrine.

So that's my sad story. Oh wow, and I am a member of one non-denominational "Community Church". The reason behind all of this is not that I'm trying to cover bases, but I moved around a lot and I just joined whichever church was nearby and seemed to be teaching healthy, Biblical values. The reason I say I am still a member of all of them is because that's the policy of all of them. You are a member unless you actively request not to be anymore.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Dave Ulchers
St. Paul, in his explanation as to why they do not need to be circumsized makes the statement that the believer is justified "by faith, not works." Despite the fact that Paul makes clear elsewhere that man is judged by his works, and his declaration that a man is nothing without charity, and all that Jesus says on the topic, there must have been some confusion, and as Paul's letters, such as Romans, were circulating widely we can imagine, no less than St. James, leader of the Jerusalem congregation, wrote a point by point clarification of some of the misinterpretations of Romans which we know as the letter of James, in which he makes it clear that charity is a part of the faith. And the matter was settled for over a thousand years.

Both the Methodist and Baptist churches now teach "fatih without works is dead". Baptists still nominally believe in assured salvation, and Methodists still believe in "backsliding", but there are people in both churches who disagree with the party line, and indeed the big picture regarding prophecy, predestiny, salvation and assurance is a very complex one, so be easy on us Prots who maybe have a hard time with any particular dogma concerning the exact, correct view of it all. It's an incredibly difficult topic...

*Ponders starting yet another thread... Naw.*

 

[Dave Ulchers]

I agree it is a difficult topic. Honestly, I get a little too passionate about it.

 

[Shane Roach]

I'm reposting this question because it got burried and it is probably the main interest I have in this thread, as it begins to unfold.

In the Methodist church, the one which I am most familiar with, we have basically Deacons and Elders. The upper structure of the church is chosen from the Elders. So, usually for example, a minister is an Elder who got to the position of Elder by following the prescribied educational and I guess "liturgical" requirements.

Can you give me a rough idea of how the Catholic church is organized as far as how leadership is selected?

 

[VOW]

To Shane:

Well, first you need to get some very influential corporate sponsors, and then you need to start having campaign fundraisers, plus if you marry into money, that really helps.... oh, wait a minute!

Seriously, Wolseley is probably your best bet for that info. Why not drop him a PM and ask him to stop by this thread? Truthfully, I'd be interested to know, myself.


Peace be with you,
~VOW