I was so sure that this discussion
had run its course.
Apparently not yet.

I'd like to quote from Dr Paul
Collins in response to the two
previous posts:

"Our culture has long moved from
Hellenistic concepts such as
omnipotence, eternity, immutability
and the supernatural, and distinctions between
person and nature, essence and existence,
substance and accidents. Rhetoric like this
is difficult to people like ourselves who
think in relational, psychological,
evolutionary, historical and functional terms.

So...what is the relevance to the future of
Catholicism?

...we are dealing with a shift of emphasis...
rather than the actual abolition of Hellenistic
metaphysics... a shift of emphasis does not imply
the 'abandonment' or jettisoning of something.
It simply means we have already integrated the past.
Today history and human experience are the norms
we use to understand our human predicament and metaphysics
is relegated to the background.

Essentially our challenge is to formulate a contemporary
theology and catechesis that recognises the role of
memory and experience. History is about the ever-changing,
always complex and often serendipitous interplay of
events, processes, circumstances and personalities in
extraordinarily diverse and variegated sets of cultural
and political contexts. As such it is a much needed
antidote and balance to the absolutes of metaphysics..."

Catholicism has survived precisely because ultimately it is
adaptable and able to change. Often this energy for change
comes late in the piece when everything seems to be in
dire straits and it may well emerge from the most
unexpected source.

As Saint Paul says "God chose what is foolish in the
world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in
the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low
and despised in the world...to reduce to nothing
things that are" (I Corinthians 1:27-28).

Polycarp,

"The old monk ..."

The way I heard it he had tears streaming down his face. :)

"Fact 1. "Peter"...first 'Pope'...

Fact 2. Mark 1:...30Simon's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever...

So..... pope ... obviously ... MARRIED :)

Where did the RC Church go wrong?"

Later, in Luke 18:28, Peter said he left everything he had to follow the Lord. We believe that included his wife. We believe that was the most extreme situation with most pastors merely not having sex with their wives. After a long period of time a disciplinary requirement of celibacy was introduced to make sexual continence more likely.

Rache,

I'll be interested to know what historians come up with prior to the 4th century. However if you look at the writings of early Christians prior to that time certain things (outside the Bible) seem to hint at the requirement being earlier.

Origen in the Didascalia believed to be written somewhere in the first half of the 3rd century wrote:

"Since we see, however, that men married twice can be much better than those who have only married once, we ask ourselves why Paul does not allow twice-married men to be installed in eclesiastical offices...The monogamous man, however, who perhaps has lived together with his wife into old age, we prefer to admit to office, even if he never had become accustomed to chastity and continence."

That has a double significance. It provides a degree of support for much earlier clerical continence. But further, an orthodox pastor not very many centuries after Paul takes it as a rejection of digamous men. Catholics believe the Pauline scripture is a rejection of digamous men. Due to the potentially ambiguous expression Jehovah's Witnesses (in attacking the Catholic faith) claim that Paul is screening out polygamous men and proactively requiring Bishops to marry once. I know from experience debating the point that that interpretation cannot be sustained from the context. Point out the clear problems and people go silent and never revisit it.

Foxy,

"...God chose what is low and despised in the world...to reduce to nothing things that are" (I Corinthians 1:27-28)."

So what do you reckon is despised in the world - celibacy or hedony?

Now you think Collins is not mixing up the apostles with other people when he asserts that the majority were married (although given the sexual continence thing that doesn't close all issues). I note that Tertullian, a Carthage based theologian, believed way back in 217 that Peter was the only married apostle.

I acknowledge Collins has some wonderful qualifications but my point with Pell is just that he has qualifications relating to history and to meaningfully discuss changing celibacy requires recourse to history. The introduction of celibacy had a context. Collins probably wants priests to be married and sexually active or sexually active in a gay union. I suspect he isn't trying to reinstate sexually continent married priests and may not be aware of nor discusses what removing the disciplinary requirement would result in. His understanding appears to be a secular perception of Catholic priesthood in terms of a dichotomy of celibate or married with sex. Without understanding what celibacy means to the Catholic Church I don't see how he can offer constructive suggestions to change things. If these guesses are correct then his understanding may be weaker than mine (as a lay non-historian Catholic) and it supports my point about Pell. I'll see when I read the book.

As Rache said it could be changed at any time but if the denomination has a belief in a divinely mandated sexual continence for pastors this is hardly the time in history when opening up to married men will promote the requirement. I concede that powers that be in the Church might take a different view to MHO but it seems obvious.

Likewise if he thinks that letting priests have sex will bring in more priests then again his solution to the problem of priest numbers might require a better understanding of the history of Catholic clerical celibacy.

Dear mjpb,

There is another element that needs to be considered.
Essentially metaphysical absolutism is about
protecting hierarchy. It is about arranging reality
in a structured, top-down way which ultimately
powerful churchmen (like Pell) interpret. It is
essentially about "sacra potestas:holy power."

As Dr Collins points out, "Metaphysics has survived
because...the ancient structure of "power" has
survived. So, for instance, the Christian church, being
the head of the Roman Empire, could not abandon this structure
of power and was not able to develop all the anti-
metaphysical implications for Christianity."

In my view, Collins is trying to point
out that the Church's beliefs are not set in stone,
the tradition is a dynamic reality that grows and
changes and Cardinal Pell's notion that somehow
there is an immutable reality above history or
that revelation is not an ongoing, developing
reality is simply not true to Catholic theology.

Anyway, read the book. I don't have the space
here to go into great details with you.
You'll get a better understanding after you've read
exactly what Dr Collins has to say.

I don't want to sound like a broken record,
but nowdays the requirement of celibacy is seen
for what it is: a requirement of church law that
could be changed today.

And, as I've stated in my previous posts many
Catholics see a massive inconsistency and a lot
of scandal in the fact that Catholicism has
accepted covert married clergy into its ministry.

They obviously don't have a problem with hedony
when it suits them.

Rache,

Adding to the historical background of priests not having sex is another writing of Origen written way back in or about 245 (during the time of Roman persecution) called “Against Celsus”. It is responding to attacks on Christianity by pagan Celsus.

“…as soon as they have accepted the teachings of Jesus and have entrusted themselves to God, that many of them in the manner of perfect priests who abhor all sexual relations, remain completely pure, not only with regard to sex. Among the Athenians there is very likely some [pagan] priest who is not considered capable of subduing his masculine drives and controlling them to the extent he wishes. Therefore, according to the views on chastity prevailing among the Athenians, he is regarded as pure only when his sexual parts have been coated with hemlock juice. Among the Christians, however, men can be found who do not need hemlock juice in order to serve the Divinity in purity. For them, instead of hemlock, the Word of God is sufficient to remove all evil cravings from their hearts, so that they can present their prayers to the Godhead.”

All,

I agree that people not in a religion shouldn’t tell people how to run their religion but this discussion provides an opportunity for Catholics to share their perspective and a discussion of relevant scriptures can smooth relations with others in the Christian family. Protestants sometimes get the impression that an admission by Catholics that celibacy is merely a disciplinary requirement introduced in the 12th century means that we have no respect for the Word of God based on scriptures such as "be fruitful and multiply" in spite of claiming to follow God. If we can explain how it relates to sexual continence and why we understand that to be important from scriptures then it might even lead to better understanding. Protestants might not agree with our scriptural interpretation and may or may not see celibacy as beneficial in promoting sexual continence but discussions like this at least enable them to know where we are coming from.

"Our culture has long moved from Hellenistic concepts such as
omnipotence, eternity, immutability and the supernatural, and distinctions between person and nature, essence and existence,
substance and accidents. Rhetoric like this is difficult to people like ourselves who think in relational, psychological,
evolutionary, historical and functional terms." - Collins in Foxy

A Black Hole or Zero Degrees Kelvin [as an abstarct, only 2.7K is now possible] would maintain most of these properties. Were we have artisanship without an [Greek]epistemology, we would have the system of the Ancient Chinese; where, discovery was often happenstance. Albeit, the reaction to discoveries was pragmatic, without the restraint of the Christian Church, which gave the West its Dark Ages.
They would have loved Gallileo!

The Muslims in Spain preserved Episte, which aided the Enlightenmight and a few centuries later [c.1760) permitted the Great Divergence. Thank G.., opps, Thank abstract methodology on practical applications.

Collins like Einstein is a nineteenth century thinker, whom finds it hard to release we have now moved beyond even Hiensberg. Cognitively, I p[osit, infinite indeterminancy in quantum mechanics, expressed as an abstract, is closer to a myth, like Christianity, than believe in the engineering of a steam engine.

[Sorry, off topic]