Single, Celibate Fathers

Choice is choice,church and STATE are separated.If one wants to be catholic or is catholic,you have made the choice with no coersion.This applies not only to Churh but also every organisation-EX: AN HOA, it is binding when you buy a property. I do not see any dispute. Obama is seeing with CATARACT and expressing his opinion.The issue of abortion is two individuals choice, when they mated, they almost surrendered the single persons choice- yes, the hardship of carrying the pregnancy is very hard on one person.The hormones act with no CHOICE-control it by WILL of CELIBACY or use proper contraceptives. The yougsters in the back seat of there car should keep the supplies. For Cathilics, there is a choice-conscience or not. I wish this problem would go away, but the aged constitution is in the way, sympathy is not written, neither, the RESPONSIBILITY is ever written- it has left for granted-but that does not make it a LAW

I've thought alot about what to write but in the end the only thing I can say is that I'm Catholic and Priest should be able to get married.

"Should the Catholic priesthood be restricted to single, celibate men? Do clergy restrictions based on gender, marital status or sexual orientation make sense these days?"

Sure, if the church wants to remain as dysfunctional and perverted as it has been for decades.

Now, if you could get them all to stop drinking, that would be an improvement.
A wife could go a long way in that regard.
So would opening the priesthood to women.

There is no biblical justification for celibate priests. To claim otherwise would be to suggest that for the first thousand years of its existence the church was in severe error, as married priests were the norm. That said, the church has the right to impose special requirements on those it ordains, so long as those requirements do not run counter to biblical precepts and those requirements are encouraged by the Holy Spirit.

As far as I know the Catholic Church has never claimed that a celibate priesthood was a biblical mandate, only that it was their internal rule. I do contend that it was a mistake, made to correct a problem rampant in the church, the problem of passing church office from father to son. That is to say it was an error made to correct an error. It achieved its goal, but at a high price.

A celibate man can focus his energies on his work, but I didn't see Jesus picking only celibate men. Peter was married and it didn't interfere with his qualifications, which amounted to one thing: Jesus picked him.

So, the Catholic Church should stick with the qualification of only ordaining those who are called, and turn back from the practice of ordaining only those who are both called and celibate.

This will require the intervention of the Pope, but he was not called to maintain church tradition, but to lead the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I'm sharing an opinion, daniel, rather than commenting on what you have written. This was the long way of saying that if the universe has multiple dimensions then the arrow of time may be the direction of events causing each other next to each other. Except that this doesn't account for things that cause each other without being next to each other, and that it might be that there is just one particle in the universe that causes (interacts with) itself because it sits in an strange fold of space that is the real universe.

(This last bit is the same as a ball sitting between two parallel mirrors and seeing an infinite numbers of itself, where it could actually go through the mirrors and bounce off itself; it's a way of saying that distances between events in the universe might be an illusion created by those events, i.e. there is no true locality beyond what is produced by particle interactions "in the past")

To Cacxo from Daniel. So far as I can tell you are disagreeing with me because you believe that life is not just change but that eternity or some fixed point or something out of time as we know it exists. But that is just theory on your part--not going by the facts as we currently know them. Furthermore I never said anything of the sort about relativity disproving time. I merely stated as Einstein stated, that an object moving at high speeds or an object caught by a powerful gravitational pull will slow down in its time relative to the field of change outside itself. Far from relativity as so far understood disproving time or enabling escape from time, it seems to imprison because it freezes something "in time" relative to all the changes going on around it.

As to your statement about change of state not accounting for the existence or non existence of time, I do not understand. Everything of what we call time is bound up with our calculating changes in state. There is nothing fixed that we know of. We are in change and we calculate the differences relative to one another as best we can. As for change accounting for the nonexistence of time I fail to understand that statement. What nonexistence of time? There is no nonexistence of time that we know. We are in time and we in it because we are involved in change and we know time because we are becoming more and more capable of calculating change around us.

I would say you have utterly misunderstood what I have written. And I seriously doubt you will ever be able to understand what I have written--see time as I see it. Furthermore I know I never will see time as you see it. In fact I fail to understand what you mean by time.

@Daniel

Relativity does not in itself disprove time because even if it is the same thing as space, it still has a direction and it flows. There is also locality of interactions and causality, as opposed to non-locality and acausality as persiflage points out is the case with QM.

Change of state in itself does not account for the existence or non-existance of time. A system that does not change state is frozen in time and a system that does change state has time, but this is a trusism as it is the ordinary meaning of time.

If you take a timeless perspective then the universe is a set of data that describes all that has been and will be.

There are still many ways in which the data can be arranged.
A movie reel exists all at the same "time" when you don't play it. The frames in a movie real are similar to do each other when they are close to each other ("frames next to each other cause each other") - the movie reel analogy has causality, locality and a single time-arrow.

A matrix analogy (which I suppose is closer to the TOR) would be a puzzle where time is in the direction of relatedness between the pieces of the puzzle. If 20 pieces seem similar to each other ("cause each other") and are arranged in a circular shape next to each other, then time flows in a circles in this place of the matrix; time is the direction of causality but there is no fixed time-arrow.
There is still locality; pieces that are similar to each other but not next to each other are a coincidence. (they are not causing each other).

An analogy that has no time arrow or locality would be a matrix puzzle where all pieces are related to each other regardless of their position - a puzzle that forms a single picture that remains a single picture no matter how you turn it about and look at it, but where every two pieces share some similarity even if you ignore the other pieces.

All those are space-related perspectives which doesn't have to be the case. It could easily be that there is just one piece of the puzzle sitting motionless and timeless in neither space or time - like the ball of a ball pen that drew a picture on a sheet of paper (space).
If you take a particle and put it on the north pole on the inside of a sphere of space(-time), then from the particle's perspective, wherever it looks, it sees itself some distance away (light goes back to it around the meridians of the sphere). So, that particle seems to also exist as infinitely many particles arranged in a circle some distance away from the origin; this means that a single particle can interact with itself through some shape of space and seem like many particles.
So, the universe might not be so much a matrix of particles and their timeless states, then space that has folded itself over a single particle in some strange shape.

(My knowledge of physics, though, is rudimentary - I'm not a physicist)

To all who read my piece on what time is--thank you Persiflage for reading--I wish I had followed my cardinal rule when it comes to writing of being clearer and still clearer. I guess I assumed too much on the part of the reader specifically concerning the Einstein aspects of the piece. Why I assumed everyone would clearly understand Einstein is beyond me. I have great difficulty myself. I should not have taken things for granted. So please, all, ignore my previous post on time and consider this one. Thank you. P.S. I will highlight the word changes I am making on this piece so it will be easier to compare with the first, inferior post on time.

On what time is.

Time does not flow, is not a flowing of some thing apart from matter readily at hand. Rather what time is is things growing and changing--that is, the changes in things as marked by man.

What we have fundamentally (among other fundamentals) is an obvious change in things with no evidence for anything eternal. And these changes in things can go relatively unnoticed although they exist, as in animal consciousness, or they can be noticed in a variety of ways depending on one's ability to "mark time", calculate changes in things.

What we humans call time is nothing but our capacity--and no other beings' so far as we know--to calculate changes in things. Animals cannot do it as well as us. There could very well be beings superior to humans who are more acute in their calculations, more capable of grasping minute differences as well as gulfs of time (gulfs between various events, which are upsurges of change by which we can calculate change in the first place).

The above is the basic understanding of time by a materialist--general scientific--understanding. Now on this basic understanding--working with it as foundation--we have been told about more interesting materialistic aspects of time. The most famous of course is time according to Einstein's theories.

Einstein postulated that according to his special theory of relativity and general theory of the same that, respectively, time would contract, slow down, as an object (animate or inanimate) approaches high speeds--or if an object finds itself in a powerful gravitational well, such as the pull from a black hole.

To accelerate and move at high speed or to be accelerated and moved at high speed by a powerful gravitational pull are identical according to Einstein. Now what this all means is that two methods--being moved at high speed by a propulsive force or moved at high speed by being sucked by a powerful gravitational pull--have the same result of slowing the TIME of an object within the field of other changes around the object.

In other words, according to Einstein two methods at least exist by which an object can be slowed down in its TIME changes while everything else races ahead with its TIME changes relative to the object. So if a human were under the effects of either of Einstein's two new notions for humans about time, the human would be seeing "time" rapidly moving apart from himself--which of course would be simply changes in things apart from himself.

Such a human by this method would be able to move into the future more rapidly than the average method which is of course everybody's general experience of time. In other words, the human under Einstein's effect would be changing much less rapidly TIMEWISE than usual compared to the things around him so he could theoretically be maybe a few days older physically, but things will have changed around him so fast that when "time" comes back to normal he would be, for example, a hundred years in the future.

This might sound fantastic, but this is what we can derive from Einstein. But it should be noted that it is not so fantastic when we reflect that if a person were to be slowed down TIMEWISE relative to the things around him he would be far more deeply into the future than he would have been experiencing "normal time"--which is to say he would be in the position with respect to the future as, for example, a 17th century man would be in if he were catapulted by Einstein's method into the 21st century. Of course such a person would be horrifyingly behind the times, completely out of touch, pretty much useless in our modern economy.

So enjoy the time you have, and reflect seriously on changes that may be possible to oneself timewise and with respect to other people. Reflect wisely whether one wants to move dramatically into the future or not. I like the time here I have to myself.

Still waiting for some answers to the following:

Are there any other religions or cults who require celibacy of their leaders and/or members?

Any members of the Baha'ists, Aum Shinrikyo, Peoples Temple, Heaven's Gate, Order of the Solar Temple, Church of Scientology or Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, out there that could answer that question??

An orthodox rabbi, a Baptist minister and pope Benedict XIV all died the same day.

They arrived in heaven together, and were ushered straight from the gates to god's office, for an interview.

The rabbi went in to talk to god first. 20 minutes later, he came out wringing his hands and weeping and saying "How could I have been so wrong!"

The Baptist minister went in next, and after a short interview with god, he came out wringing his hands and weeping and saying "How could I have been so wrong!"

Then Benedict/Ratzinger went in for his once-over. Within minutes, god came out, wringing his hands and weeping and saying "How could I have been so wrong!"

Jon/Sally wrote:

"Should the Catholic priesthood be restricted to single, celibate men?"

FYI, the definition of celibate is 'unmarried'. To say single and celibate is redundant.

@Doug_White
I don't mean to interpret and I don't know - this question reflects my own view and opinion and it is more of an attempt to point the obvious.

Daniel - well said! I recall that both Don Juan and George Gurdjeiff had one recommendation for personal advancement - death should be viewed as a dark stranger lurking over your left shoulder.

Gurdjeiff opined that if only humans knew their own time of death, the incentive for personal development would be greatly enhanced - instead, death is a purely imaginary event that happens to other people. I've seen countless dead bodies, but not mine - so far.

A famous Zen master was asked if one could expect a life after death - he replied, 'how would I know, I'm not dead yet'.

So it goes ------- per Kurt Vonnegut - who is dead.

Time does not flow, is not a flowing of some thing apart from matter readily at hand. Rather what time is is things growing and changing--that is, the changes in things as marked by man.

What we have fundamentally (among other fundamentals) is an obvious change in things with no evidence for anything eternal. And these changes in things can go relatively unnoticed although they exist, as in animal consciousness, or they can be noticed in a variety of ways depending on one's ability to "mark time", calculate changes in things.

What we humans call time is nothing but our capacity--and no other beings so far as we know--to calculate changes in things. Animals cannot do it as well as us. There could very well be beings who are more acute in their calculations, more capable of grasping minute differences as well as gulfs of time (gulfs between various events, which are upsurges of change by which we can calculate change in the first place).

The above is the basic understanding of time by a materialist--general scientific understanding. Now on this basic understanding--working with it as foundation--we have been told about more interesting materialistic aspects of time. The most famous of course is time according to Einstein's theories.

Einstein postulated that according to his special theory of relativity and general theory of the same that, respectively, time would contract, slow down, as an object (animate or inanimate) approaches high speeds--or if an object finds itself in a powerful gravitational well, such as the pull from a black hole.

To accelerate and move at high speed or to be accelerated and moved at high speed by a powerful gravitational pull are identical according to Einstein. Now what this all means is that two methods--being moved at high speed by a propulsive force or moved at high speed by being sucked by a powerful gravitational pull--have the same result of slowing the speed of an object within the field of other changes around the object.

In other words, according to Einstein two methods at least exist by which an object can be slowed down in its changes while everything else races ahead with its changes relative to the object. So if a human were under the effects of either of Einstein's two new notions for humans about time, the human would be seeing "time" rapidly moving apart from himself--which of course would be simply changes in things apart from himself.

Such a human by this method would be able to move into the future more rapidly than the average method which is of course everybody's general experience of time. In other words, the human under Einstein's effect would be changing much less rapidly than usual compared to the things around him so he could theoretically be maybe a few days older physically, but things will have changed around him so fast that when "time" comes back to normal he would be, for example, a hundred years in the future.

This might sound fantastic, but this is what we can derive from Einstein. But it should be noted that it is not so fantastic when we reflect that if a person were to be slowed down relative to the things around him he would be far more deeply into the future than he would have been experiencing "normal time"--which is to say he would be in the position with respect to the future as, for example, a 17th century man would be in if he were catapulted by Einstein's method into the 21st century. Of course such a person would be horrifyingly behind the times, completely out of touch, pretty much useless in our modern economy.

So enjoy the time you have, and reflect seriously on changes that may be possible to oneself timewise and with respect to other people. Reflect wisely whether one wants to move dramatically into the future or not. I like the time here I have to myself.

persiflage, you said,
"When the Buddha said that he discovered absolutely nothing at the moment of deep unexcelled enlightenment."
__________________________
-man...that's good. like i've said, those buddhists are light years ahead of our "historical" religions.

" cacxo Author Profile Page :

"@Doug_White

Be reasonable Doug, if love commands you to do some things then how can it be a commandment?"

Your point is not insignificant. However, where do you get the idea that Jesus was speaking in/out of love, rather than merely teaching?"

Sorry...for teaching, read reprimanding.

Persiflage:

"Doug - here are a couple of websites that I've found both fascinating and entertaining, when you have the time."

I am very much obliged! You are always welcome in my house...it would be an honor to sit zazen with you.

" cacxo Author Profile Page :

@Doug_White

Be reasonable Doug, if love commands you to do some things then how can it be a commandment?"

Your point is not insignificant. However, where do you get the idea that Jesus was speaking in/out of love, rather than merely teaching?

@Doug_White

Be reasonable Doug, if love commands you to do some things then how can it be a commandment?

Doug - here are a couple of websites that I've found both fascinating and entertaining, when you have the time.

Dzogchen is a profound system with much kinship to Zen......

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/n.html_1870389411.html

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/bodhidharma/death.html

CAXCO wrote:

"What I meant is that people can grow in love, by being true to it and to themselves, and making small steps. And even that is not a commandment."

Withe the first sentence, I am in complete agreement. With the second sentence, I am not.

Persiflage wrote:

"if we do in fact create our own reality from within rather than from what is perceived in exterior space,
is this a level of mind that we're even remotely familiar with?"

A profound question, and one for which I have no answers, but more questions. If we do not create reality for ourselves, then whence cometheth the thing we identify as reality? Whether it is a level of mind with which we are familiar, do you mean from birth? I would say no. From introspection and development, I would think yes.

I am Zen and only a novice...I've been finding my own way. I am sorry that I cannot be profound about these matters, much as I am intrigued.

@Doug_White

Doug_White wrote:
"Well, actually you are wrong, where christians are concerned: Jesus said 'I give you a new commandment, that you love one another.'"

This is not "I give you a new commandment, that you act as if you love one another" is what I was trying to say.
What I meant is that people can grow in love, by being true to it and to themselves, and making small steps. And even that is not a commandment.

Caxco and Doug - if we do in fact create our own reality from within rather than from what is perceived in exterior space,
is this a level of mind that we're even remotely familiar with?

Diaz Suzuki, the Rinzai Zen master and author best known for bringing Zen to the West declared that this Mind was Unconsciousness - although not exactly with the same understanding as Jung's collective unconscious.

Jung was after all a psychiatrist speaking of psychological constructs - although based on universal psychic realities. His emotional sympathies were focused on eastern mysticism and Gnosticism.

Suzuki was adament that satori/enlightenment was the only goal worthy to be associated with Zen. Without this experience, seeing the nature of reality e.g. the essential Mind, is like trying to look through black lacquer.

At times I consider this Mind to be the undisclosed force that keeps every neural element and biochemical sub-cellular process of the body in perfect balance and harmony (or disharmony if that is your fate). A single human (or sentient) body is a self-contained universe - I like that metaphor.

When the Buddha said that he discovered absolutely nothing at the moment of deep unexcelled enlightenment, he seemed to pass on the ultimate koan.......

Or rather, "One can ONLY know reality when he makes it."

Persiflage wrote:

"One supposes that you would know reality when you see it, but the evidence seems to indicate otherwise."

An interesting observation. I would have said that one knows reality when he makes it.

Persiflage wrote:

"

@persiflage

The problem I have with the Buddhist view, as I understand it, is that oneness does not necessarily mean consciousness or thinking, i.e. it is not necessarily a mind.
A collection of cells in a colony organism are one, but they are not the same collection of cells that makes a human.
That the universe is somehow one does not make it a universal one mind.

It can all easily be a human-related consciousness and physics phenomenon, that provides an acausal relation to the universe and between humans (or conscious life forms); it is not necessarily an inherent property of the universe.
That's why I stick to pondering acausality and time, to untangle it.

@CCNL

Thanks, I will check it out.

Walter - as one realist to another, when you've met one realist, you've met one realist. The definition of realism is as elusive as the concepts of heaven and reincarnation in my view.

Einstein would be an excellent example of a materialist realist - this in spite of his own discoveries on special and general relativity....and his own EPR experiments that actually led to the established concept of non-locality.

He would have none of it, including what he considered the 'incomplete' ideas found in quantum mechanics - which still stands undefeated with an enviable success rate through many research experiments using quantum formulations.

One supposes that you would know reality when you see it, but the evidence seems to indicate otherwise.

buddhists have a much more sophisticated belief system than say the god-with-a-beard of judeochrislam, but to a realist, the idea of reincarnation is just as..."difficult"...as the idea of heaven. there's really no reason other than personal desire to believe in it.

Caxco - I see that I failed to respond on the reincarnation issue. In the modern era, some research has been done in this area and all of that is readily available.

In the Buddhist view, what survives and reappears in another manifest form is an individual stream of consciousness that inherently possesses the pure identity of that One Mind that we spoke of, but is ignorant of this fact - the illusion of a separate identity that generates desire for an individual life and all that entails, is the essential (perpetual) result.

The consequence is an endless chain of seemingly individual lives lived in many forms, dimensions and spheres throughout endless time. Due to the (misapprehended) power of Mind, everything seems very real at every moment in this unbroken chain - carried forward by the force of karma. Mind is the clarity of awareness in this view, and the true life force.

Enlightenment and full realization of one's true identity fractures this chain of necessity forever. This idea and related ideas are very well covered in the Tibetan Book of the Dead - highly recommended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Book_of_the_Dead

Caxco - thanks for your thoughtful comments. It became clear post-Einstein that time/space/gravity/energy were all part of one essential primal force that could be split up subjectively, but objectively speaking were married for all eternity - or until entropy brings the whole show to a halt in the distant future.

Quantum mechanics threw a wrench in the works and complicated the that view to a huge degree - said that for all practical purposes time can run both ways....so wherefore the arrow of time? Not to mention the idea of non-locality, which matches up quite well with Jung's idea of synchronicity.

As CCNL noted, I'm an advocate of the Buddhist view, which holds that the fundamental essence of all existence is Awareness and Emptiness taken together. The phenomenal universe is apparent but not real in the way that we commonly imagine - it does exist in some inconceivable way.

The true nature of phenomena cannot be apprehended via mental constructs since the identity of the seer and the seen is non-dual and inseparable.

The extremely lengthy Avatamsaka sutra is the text that addresses this essential view and much else, but Nagarjuna is the Buddhist sage and master dialectician that did much to separate out and clarify this fundamental concept in the 3rd century C.E.

All of creation is Mind-made from start to finish - but what this Mind is, is not so easy to say. The Zen view simplifies matters.....all is apparent but not real, and the chain of causation is motionless.

The One Mind is all there is.......to be fully realized only at the moment of deep enlightenment.

Actually quite a lot has been written in recent years that attempts to join Buddhist thought and quantum mechanical discoveries and theories about the nature of reality. Consciousness figures very heavily as the central theme of these works.....as it should. Some physicists are exceedingly skeptical of this 'courtship'.

For example, the physicist and author Victor Stenger has been at odds with Prof. Lanza's view and interpretation of quantum phenomena and consciousness since the 1990's. There is always a devils' advocate in the wings!

On the other hand, I will no doubt be purchasing Biocentrism on CCNL's recommendation - to add to the science geek section of my ever-expanding New Age library for seniors. I'm putting him right next to the Richard Dawkins selections.....

regards!

CAXCO,

As noted early in the thread:

For things significantly more important than Father Cutie's fornication:

According to Drs. Lanza and Berman in their new book,
"Biocentrism", the last frontier is Consciousness.

An excerpt:

"However, the Grand Canyon or Taj Mahal are only real when you get there." p. 160.

"Third Principle of Biocentrism:

The behavior of subatomic particles- indeed all particles and objects- is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves." p. 93.

"So the table has been set in the public mind for biocentrism's jump to the reality that its all only in the mind, that the universe exists nowhere else. "p. 167 (said comment follows a short review of movies like Star Trek, Back to the Future, Battlestar Galactia, Peggy Sue Got Married, et al.) p. 167.

I am adding the Sixth Principle of Biocentrism because of your interest in the concept of time:

"Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe."

See also Persifage's previous comments about "biocentrism".

The authors of the book also briefly address "biocentrism" with respect to the various religious beliefs to include that of Buddhism which Persifage is an advocate of and "biocentrism" appears to support in some aspects according the authors. p. 158.

Minor correction:

Are there any other religions or cults who require celibacy of their leaders and/or members?

Any members of the Baha'ists, Aum Shinrikyo, Peoples Temple, Heaven's Gate, Order of the Solar Temple, Church of Scientology or Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, out there that could answer that question??

@persiflage

I don't believe in reincarnation, or in a soul, in the sense of software changing computers. Identity is related to life memories and a person with amnesia has a different identity. Therefore, without memories of a past life there is no reincarnation (besides, plants can really have memories at all). Buddhists invoke visions of past lives as proof, but a vision does not constitute a memory - if it really is what they claim then it is a vision of someone else's past life.
Reincarnation in the sense of the same hardware coming back to life is another thing, but the hardware has no personality because there isn't that much variation in how people are, or think (then again, a plant has a different hardware from a human).
Also, I have a pet theory of mine that time per se is an illusion and that there is no such thing as past or future like in the conventional experience of time; experience of time might be a partial case of something else that I can't really put my finger on at the moment.
A cornerstone in that hypothesis is the acausality of miracles. I prophet does not so much tell the future than make the future. If a prophet's words or apparent intent can produce a miracle 5 seconds latter, then he can certainly produce a miracle 10 years latter - but in this case this event might be interpreted as a prophecy that has come true. Likewise, if acausal events are truly acausal, then a prophet can produce miracles in the past; a reverse prophecy of sorts where an event in the past acquires a prophetic meaning of what the prophet will say or seem to intend 10 years latter.
And if there is no such thing as time as we perceive it, just records and artifacts in the present (something I won't dismiss outright), then there can be no such thing as reincarnation in its ordinary meaning.

/this is a simplistic argument for the sake of brevity that does not take into consideration that full awareness or integration of the Jungian concept of Self (whatever it is) is probably beyond the capacity of the mind, i.e. the notion of intent is itself questionable when it comes to miracles/

Are there any other religions or cults who require celibacy of their leaders and/or members?

Any members of the Baha'ists, Aum Shinrikyo, Peoples Temple, , Heaven's Gate, Order of the Solar Temple, Church of Scientology and Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, out there that could answer that question??

Doug_White, you said,
"It is sufficiently confusing and self-contradictory without additional outside help."
__________________________________
indeed. and yes, i agree accuracy when quoting is important. see ya.

WalterinFallsChurch:

Actually, I was quoting from John, in the new testament. It is one of the verses that christers love to point to.

Frankly, I find the whole of the OT and NT to be a waste of time. But if one is going to make 'biblical' assertions, one should be as accurate as possible, I think. It is sufficiently confusing and self-contradictory without additional outside help.

CACXO, CCNL, Doug_White,
you guys amuse me when you parse certain phrases from scripture and speculate on their authenticity.

ALL of scripture is unreliable, as it was written by ignorant, superstitious men with personal agendas, years after the fact. and of course "eye witness evidence" is the WORST kind.

gladerunner, you said,
"Nor did he travel by airplane nor automobile."

ha! that's funny.

Today's CNN coverage of the topic:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/15/barron.why.celibacy/index.html

from: The Rev. Robert Barron is Francis Cardinal George Professor of Faith and Culture at Mundelein Seminary and author of several books,

"This is why, the Church is convinced, God chooses certain people to be celibate. Their mission is to witness to a transcendent form of love, the way that we will love in heaven. In God's realm, we will experience a communion (bodily as well as spiritual) compared to which even the most intense forms of communion here below pale into insignificance, and celibates make this truth viscerally real for us now. Though one can present practical reasons for it, I believe that celibacy only finally makes sense in this eschatological context.

For years, the Rev. Andrew Greeley argued -- quite rightly in my view -- that the priest is fascinating and that a large part of the fascination comes from celibacy. The compelling quality of the priest is not a matter of superficial celebrity or charm. It is something much stranger, deeper, more mystical. It is the fascination for another world."

There are some significant theological flaws in this thinking but the author was brave enough to defend priestly celibacy.

An op-ed from another Catholic priest: The Rev. Donald Cozzens is writer in residence and adjunct professor of theology at John Carroll University in Cleveland, Ohio. A priest of the Diocese of Cleveland with a doctoral degree, he is the author of several books on the Catholic Church-

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/15/cozzens.celibacy.discussion/index.html

"I don't know Father Alberto Cutie. He appears to have touched the lives of many and preached the gospel with power and conviction. I suspect he feels called by God to be a priest, but not a celibate priest.

Surely he knows that Easter Rite Catholic priests are allowed to marry and that the church welcomes into the priesthood married convert ministers from other Christian denominations. Surely he knows that in many parts of the Catholic world, clerical celibacy is openly flouted, and church authorities choose not to notice.

I wonder if church officials understand the burden they place on the shoulders of a man who believes he is called to priestly ministry but not to celibacy. Certainly, a married priesthood will have burdens of its own and, sadly, scandals of its own -- infidelity and abuse among others. But it should be left to the individual priest and seminarian to determine whether or not he is blessed with the gift of celibacy.

A mandated "gift," after all, is really no gift at all."

There is signficant doubt that the historic Jesus uttered John 13: 34 'I give you a new commandment, that you love one another.'

Said passage only appears in John's gospel i.e. a single attestation not found in any other scriptural reference and therefore not historically reliable.

The author of John's gospel, whomever he was, was the great embellisher as he spent much time and imagination in trying to turn a simple preacher man into some kind of deity.

CACXO wrote:

"Love is not a commandment, it is a practice and it is something that either springs from inside, without intent or compulsion, or doesn't."

Well, actually you are wrong, where christians are concerned: Jesus said 'I give you a new commandment, that you love one another.'

Caxco - interesting post! I've often wondered why the early Church fathers and their contingent expunged the notion of reincarnation - it was still extant with the Gnostics, but of course they were persecuted as heretics.

The early church hierarchy was apparently striving for the absolute dominance of their own version of salvation and redemption (by proxy). As you say, through the person of Jesus.

A controversial concept to hang your hat on, back in those early formative days! The Gnostics still don't buy it, even today.

Re-birth is such a dominant theme, from Greece to China to India, that the weight of history alone would seem to give some credence to this belief - Jung was not necessarily opposed to the possibility.

Kurt Goedel, the great mathematician and close confidant of Albert Einstein, was a firm believer among other noted philosophers in the West. A pretty good link is provided below....

regards -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metempsychosis

Love is not a commandment, it is a practice and it is something that either springs from inside, without intent or compulsion, or doesn't.
To act lovingly because of obligation or canon is not in itself bad for the world, but it is detrimental to the practitioner because it means a hollow existence.
It is much better to act upon a loving emotion in the very few case where it might exist, then to forcefully and artificially extend it upon everyone and everything, "because one has to".

This is only part of the problem. The bigger problem is that the Christian churches aren't really, well, gnostic.
In declaring Jesus to be "God" official Christianity has effectively put an obstacle to individuation for its followers, in the Jungian sense.
There can be no personal relation with God (the Jungian Self), because no Christian can say "I and God are one".
In the context of everyday Christianity this would either mean "I am Jesus", which is madness, or it means "I and the Father are one" which is not Christian because according to the doctrine there is only one person who is like that - Jesus.

In other words, a personal relationship with God, within the context of Christianity is akin to individuation to Jesus' persona, not to the true Self.

"The persona", symbolized by masks, clothes, veils etc. is a part of the psyche and it is the self as self constructed - it is the self one shows to the world, and with which one deals with the world. It is a false self because it is an acting self but not a feeling self - it has no depth and it is disconnected from subjective internal human experiences and motivation.
It is, basically, pretense, that can confuse people into identifying with it internally, but this is not where identity lays - identification with the persona is hypocrisy with oneself and deceiving oneself.
It is one's own persona that is an obstacle to individuation in Jungian theory, not someone else's persona. To have someone else's persona as an obstacle to individuation is ridiculous, there are plenty of obstacles already, without religious doctrines.

The persona can rear it's ugly head even after true individuation. This is Adam's problem, and the problem of the majority of prophets. Adam having sex with Eve symbolizes achieving totality, yin and yang - they are both one and the same person.
He is in a position to see and experience the spirit, but he doesn't know what he is dealing with, and his cultural background confuses him into thinking that he is experiencing an invisible god who is separate entity from him and who knows everything and judges everything - this is the apple that he (Adam and Eve) has eaten before totality.
He then feels ashamed of all his past moral transgressions (within the morality context of the same cultural background) that he thinks "God" is seeing and judging.
He then attempts to redeem himself in the eyes of "God" by acting as morally as possible (puts clothes on - this is the persona) and by helping or making others act morally, using the authority of the miracles that surround him.
He therefore becomes a part of the problem and sets the same trap for the prophets that would come after him: THE NOTION THAT SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCES AND MIRACLES ARE A MANIFESTATION OR REVELATION OF AN INVISIBLE AND SEPARATE ALL-POWERFUL ALL-KNOWING JUDGMENTAL ENTITY.

Partial Time Line from the reference noted below:

1080 Pope Gregory VII demands that clergy abandon sexual companions

1110 Peter Abelard's tragic romance due to celibacy requirements

1130 Lateran Councils declare clerical marriage invalid

1250 Monk Thomas Aquinas views passionate love of women as wicked

1484 Pope Innocent VIII approves persecution of alleged witches

1500 Renaissance scholar Erasmus extols the purity of marriage

1525 Martin Luther and Protestants repudiate failed clerical celibacy

1550 Reformer John Calvin shows Bible sanctions marriage for all

1563 Council of Trent roles marriage is inferior to celibacy

1954 Pope Pius XII's Holy Virginity encyclical lauds Trent ruling

1964 Vatican II Council acknowledges that celibacy is not essential to priesthood and accepts married deacons

1965 Beginning of precipitous decline in priests worldwide

1967 Pope Paul VI reaffirms obligatory celibacy for priests

1969 Paul VI begins accepting priests who are converted Protestant clergy

1980 Proportion of homosexual priests begins to rise rapidly

1990 Most Catholics think celibacy should be optional for priests

1995 Clerical pedophilia scandal becomes prominent

1998 Resignations of bishops who protect abusive priests rather than their victims begin

2000 Catholic catechism continues to treat homosexuality and masturbation as perversions

2002 Priestly predators provoke large lawsuits from victims

2003 Pope John Paul II declares celibacy rule non-negotiable

A book dedicated to the topic:

Clerical Celibacy: The Heritage by William E. Phipps (Paperback - April 2006)- 278 pp.

Partially available on Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=JhszdEXB2EwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Clerical+Celibacy:+The+Heritage+by+William+E.+Phipps

Time line included in the Preface.

Daniel, I enjoy your posts but the enigma of Daniel continues. You certainly generate curiosity as regards your self-imposed exile from interaction with the distaff side of life - women would certainly find your mind appealing.

Do tell more about your chosen monastic lifestyle. Women are not only gorgeous to behold, but truth be told, men cannot succeed without them. This is true for men that love men as well..........

And CCNL, considering the imagined and the real, I see progress in your posts - as of now, you are actually considering consciousness to be a real factor in the origin of all things human - in addition to your self-declared yearning for life after death, why do you disparage the concept of reincarnation e.g. metempsychosis?

This idea has been around for countless millenia - do you imagine that it's based on nothing whatsoever?

Keep searching - at the moment you have nothing, but things are beginning to come into view, despite your studied cynicism. You're a bright man with a restless if habit-struck mind. Really not a bad combination......

To Trekkies. People argue about whether the politics of the Starship Enterprise are more Democratic than Republican, and it seems Democrats especially make the distinction in their favor, but the Starship for all its ethnic diversity is topped, circumscribed, enveloped, in essentially only Western civilization thinking--particularly scientific thought.

In other words, no multiculturalism here. And it should be stressed concerning the foreign policy of the Starship that it is quite militaristic. In other words, not only does the Starship not try to engage new life and civilizations in Democratic talk talk, the Starship has a prime directive: not to interfere in other entities lives. That is more isolationist than anything.

But then again, of course this prime directive is not adhered to. The instant the Starship discovers a civilization with a useful piece of technology, etc. for the Federation it of course tries to appropriate it.

But this is all in line with what essentially is an organization with a military ethos (to say it again). All the crew members wear uniforms. They are not cavorting in the halls, doing drugs, growing their hair long and being essentially left wing.

But they are not right wing either. No Evangelical Christianity rammed down our throats. No guns guns and more guns. Even a rapid, keen and commanding officer named Kirk with the middle name Tiberius knows restraint--especially him, and fortunately for he is the captain.

Also no relationship to Republican BS about "country". If anything is spoken of it is earth, and although that is home no one is marching in goosestep with "Fatherland" complexes.

As for families aboard the Starship, whether they should be routine, that might take the edge off the five year mission to seek out new life and civilizations. On the other hand, what better way to educate a young man or woman in the ways of discipline, curiosity, command, technology and daring?

Certainly if no families are allowed it should be routine for crew members to screw one another, and no ridiculous possessiveness (this is my woman and not yours!). In fact perhaps bisexuality should be encouraged so everyone is in contact with one another and no one gets pyschologically damaged by the stresses of outer space which are evident even in small matters such as how much leg room is there aboard the ship.

This might seem an idle exercise in thought but it is actually extremely important, for these are the very issues ahead of us as we move offworld. Being in a Starship is in a sense belonging to a church and military organization and ideal society all rolled into one.

It really is not too early to attempt to design such a thing now. I personally think Startrek was a bold leap in what precisely most people do not expect: doing what I said above, designing an ideal society, or if that is too much, an ideal method by which humans of earth can travel to different star systems.

I can feel my ears getting as pointy as Spocks. No doubt some readers are extremely bored now by this and saying if I have a pointy thing at all, it is my head...

Sorry, but I do love Star Trek!

Catholic priesthood restricted to single, celibate men? Do clergy restrictions based on gender, marital status or sexual orientation make sense these days?

This question could very well be difficult for the average person to analyze because although the average person might think he is being objective, he is rarely celibate and even less so a virgin by which to truly gain access to the heart of the problem.

That said, the average person might very well be pleased to know that despite his not being celibate let alone a virgin insight into such a condition is very possible.

I know this because although I am not a priest and in fact I am a layman concerning such matters, I have never been laid (sorry about the pun!). In other words, I am a virgin.

So I am somewhat qualified to address the pros and cons of not only celibacy but virginity. First of all, and to emphasize it by containing it in this paragraph and not being hasty in starting another, a virgin let alone a celibate person is not really special in any way by his sexual behavior unless of course we want to consider the person a curiosity.

In other words I am not Saint Daniel here to listen to your confessions and to thunder on and on about God and what is pure and what is not. Why I have never slept with a woman is a complicated issue, but I know it has nothing to do with me being purer than other people.

I have always pretty much been a shy person when it comes to women (a complete contrast to my addressing intellectual matters). Add to this an awkwardness with women and a feeling of guilt for wanting to just sleep with a woman (as so many young men want to do and not immediately get married) I just never had sex when in early adulthood.

And then my powers of mind accelerated dramatically and all my willpower surged toward being so clear and logical in thinking and writing to the point that in striving for utter plainness in such I paradoxically began to understand the beauty of simplicity and economy...I just became less and less swayed by sexual desire.

But this is not to say I am beyond sex or even beyond sexual problems. I am now 45 and I feel acutely I have missed out on what perhaps is the most important aspect of a person's life: Loving and being loved in return. What sustains me in spite of such needs is once again, my interest in intellectual matters.

The crux: If a person really does not have something to throw himself into in place of sex he had better just get sexually adjusted rapidly. My concern about Catholic priests is that they take a vow of celibacy but arguably they have less to sustain them otherwise than sex than I do being interested in intellectual matters and in fact being a writer.

At least my being involved in intellectual matters and being a writer is clearly having reached a goal for which celibacy should be understood as the discipline. Priests on the other hand seem to take celibacy in a sense which is not a discipline for a goal, or if for a goal a vague "getting in touch with God".

That seems to me dangerous this understanding of priests about celibacy and of course virginity. I have doubts a person can be well adjusted psychologically without a clear, comprehensible to anyone understanding of celibacy and virginity.

No games should be played in such matters. We are talking about probably the most fundamental urge of humans--or at least comparable to the need to eat and drink and breathe air. Interfering with such a process, trying to "sublimate" such, etc. should be done very carefully, and even then adequate results will probably be impossible for most people.

In plain English, and to invoke Samuel Johnson, people need to f*ck. I cannot make it clearer than that. If a person is not f*cking he should be looked on suspiciously and be prepared to give a comprehensible and acceptable account of himself--and that is very difficult.

In fact I think I should probably just get laid. Put down the books and go out. That is my mass for the day.

Father "The Fornicator" Cutie's sexual exploits pale to those of Bill "The Adulterer" Clinton's as Clinton not only exposed himself to potential STDs but because of his sexual distractions failed to capture/kill OBL.

One wonders what each fellow will be reincarnated as????

Adherence to religious mores and ruling hierarchies from the Middle Ages, accompanied by a naive belief in the doctrines and dogma emerging from these archaic Church structures, truly requires a suspension of rational cognitive processes. Religion is not mysticism, and the two should never be confused.

Celibacy? Male-only clergy? Prohibitions against the use of birth control? How, after all, does one preach to the choir without being a singer??

So it goes with most all Vatican mandated rules and regulations - totally lacking in all the elements of a reasonable pragmatism and real world thinking.

For once I'm in agreement with CCNL and continue to advocate for 'consciousness' research - on the other hand, one can't subscribe to the quantum thinking found in biocentrism without adding in the elements of quantum decoherence - an alternate explanation to the 'observer effect and the collapse of the wave function'. See below......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

Are imams/clerics/khomeinis requred to be celibate?? If not, how many wives can they have? And are they allowed to beat their wives as per the dictates of the koran??

Ditto for the all-male leadership of the Baha'ists??

"For the most part, what the Church does or doesn't do isn't set by mere mortals."

Ignoring hundreds of years of human learning does NOT imply you're following a superior form of knowledge.

For things significantly more important than Father Cutie's fornication:

According to Drs. Lanza and Berman in their new book,
"Biocentrism", the last frontier is Consciousness.

An excerpt:

"However, the Grand Canyon or Taj Mahal are only real when you get there." p. 160.

"Third Principle of Biocentrism:

The behavior of subatomic particles- indeed all particles and objects- is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves." p. 93.

"So the table has been set in the public mind for biocentrism's jump to the reality that its all only in the mind, that the universe exists nowhere else. "p. 167 (said comment follows a short review of movies like Star Trek, Back to the Future, Battlestar Galactia, Peggy Sue Got Married, et al.) p. 167.

Besides bringing telecommunication technologies to the Mass, increase the priest talent pool by eliminating the "signficantly stupid" ban on having female and married priests.

The "scriptural references" supporting such a ban has been declared to be "null and void" by most contemporary biblical scholars. These scriptural embellishments were add-ons by scribes/translators post-Jesus based on the historical conditions in the early Church.

It is time to bring our Church out of third century mentality.

timothyjackson1
"Again no matter your gender if you make the decision to become a priest and that is the requirement than you will have to live up to it"

Or work within the church system to change it.

"where you can come up with our own opinions about morality."

Or you can choose to blindly adhere to the church's changing opinions about morality regardless if they seem archaic, nonsensical or ill conceived.

Momminator :

"For the most part, what the Church does or doesn't do isn't set by mere mortals."
Yes it is. It is set by mere mortals' interpretations of god's will. Even the pope will admit to being a mere mortal, yet he leads/enforces what the church does.

"Well, even a child can understand the Gospels well enough to be able to say, "Christ wasn't married."

Nor did he travel by airplane nor automobile. He never built a building to hold services, he never collected art, he never opened a bank account, he never wore pants. He never spoke latin or english, he never carried beads. He never published his words. He never ate processed food, nor opened a school or hospital. He never enjoyed air conditioning. He never spoke against contraception nor required his apostles/priests to remain single and celibate.
There are about a billion things that Jesus didn't do that priests do every day.

If even the children understand that christ wasn't married as the reason for priests' not marrying, then how do you explain to them all those airplane rides the priests take? To live as close to Jesus as possible would require a lot more walking would it not?

That's not "the" question, it's two separate questions, the second of which seems intended to wag the dog.

For the most part, what the Church does or doesn't do isn't set by mere mortals. She is guided by God the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete sent us via the Son of God's request to God the Father to not just be advocate but a hands-on Remind-er of all that Jesus said. The Church promulgates Christly Government; she is no one's puppet, not even here in America.

Celibacy for Catholic priests is the norm and that fact is not kept secret from seminarians, nor even disguised--as a matter of fact, all along the way one who is seeking ordination is reminded of this vow/order of celibacy! Hence, if ya later choose to fall (and indeed, it is a choice), rather than having withdrawn from seminary or taken a sabbatical and then perhaps married, then any man may do so-- but he cannot validly go pointing the finger of blame at anything or anyone other than the mirror. No one is told, "You are a husband forever, according to the order of Melchizadek" --we are told quite the opposite, that there is no need for marriage in Heaven-- but priests are told they are priests forever.

There's a world of difference between being a cleric and being a Catholic priest. Or there should be. It is not a career or a lifestyle -- it is never an addendum or sideline to one's life. It is a participation in Christ's own priesthood. How did Christ live it? Well, even a child can understand the Gospels well enough to be able to say, "Christ wasn't married." Why would that evolve into anything different? Just because mankind is weak and selfish?

I would post my thoughts on this, but I'm too busy formulating an answer for an even more pressing question: Should Starfleet allow families and children aboard starships?

I'm not Catholic but the thought is if you make the decision to join the priesthood than if that is a requirement you should uphold to it. I think a lot of enfaces is being placed on his celibacy vs. the fact that he was living in sin (fornication).

Again no matter your gender if you make the decision to become a priest and that is the requirement than you will have to live up to it; if you can't and violate the commitment than you should leave the priesthood. The question about sexual orientation is not an issue this isn’t allowed unless you feel the bible (word of God) is a think as you go sought of book where you can come up with our own opinions about morality.

KNOW THE HISTORY OF WESTERN RITE CELIBATE PRIESTS. IT WAS A MEANS OF TO END CHURCH PROPERTY BE WILLED TO THE PRIEST'S FIRST SON. TODAY THIS WHOULD NOT HAPPEN EVEN IF A PREIST HAD A FAMILY. A CELIBATE HUMAN THROUGH OUT ENTIRE LIFE IS NOT REALLY NORMAL. IT BE GREAT TO HEAR FROM THE PRIESTS. HELLO.

"Should the Catholic priesthood be restricted to single, celibate men? Do clergy restrictions based on gender, marital status or sexual orientation make sense these days?"

How can anyone ask if a rule "makes sense" for a group that believes in transubstantiation, purgatory and not in population control?

It would make sense to have a priesthood open to all believers; and then it could become the Episcopal Church, which has shrunk by half because its members became too educated to believe in supernatural nonsense.

The only thing sustaining the Catholic Church is high birth rates in Latin America and conversions in Africa. Ask them.

"Should the Catholic priesthood be restricted to single, celibate men? Do clergy restrictions based on gender, marital status or sexual orientation make sense these days?"

These questions are about as relevant to the real world as who is to be Spock and who is to be Kirk at the next Star Trek happy hour.

For almost a millennium the church followed the rule of the pastoral epistles, "Let the bishop be husband to one wife". Married clergy were known in Europe for hundreds of years. For reasons known only to itself, the church switched gears in the West, while the Eastern churches maintained marriage for clergy--and still do.

The reasons for the switch are manifold--politics, control, management, etc. The most specious reasoning I've ever heard revolve around two:

1. Jesus didn't pick any female apostles.

2. Non-marriage is a holier estate than marriage.

As to number one, there is in the oldest manuscripts of Paul's letter to Rome a reference to one Junia, called a chief among apostles. Later versions change it to Junius. Neat-o!

As to number two, go figure. Says who?

"Should the Catholic priesthood be restricted to single, celibate men? "

It's a private club, membership is not mandatory. If that club wishes to set up and operate by silly, pointless and ineffectual rules, that's their business.