i believe the term is “target-rich environment.”

The whole thing has a tacky flavor to it. Hold a big time press conference to announce that a Roman Catholic priest abandoned his sacred vows and his Church to join TEc and celebrate it with pictures of this poor guy AND the babe who is joining him in the TEc. It should be a time for saddeness for this fellow and his escort, but instead TEc makes it look like the signing ceremony of a top NFL draft pick. Tacky, tacky, tacky. And Scripture and celibacy – “Blessed are those who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven” – J.C., not to mention what St. Paul had to say.

”I am continuing the call to spread God’s love,” Cutié said at a later news conference…..

that is actually pretty funny..

OH, baby. “That promise is not recognised by our church.”

So if I get married in the Catholic church (an event the likelihood of which is on a par with pigs zooming past your bedroom window), then decide that yeah, my old model is reliable and I have no intention of trading him in but woo! that fine thing there is really ringing my bell! I could become Piskie and march him up the aisle, and Leo would be happy to pronounce us woman and sweet thang? Or indeed, woman and dolphin (as the lady in Eilat did back in 2006?)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180478,00.html

Leo, Leo, Leo. You saucy thing, you.

Okay, this is particularly ironic since the Canons (blessed be they) are especially important in TEC. but priestly celibacy is a matter of discipline, not doctrine or dogma.

That is, it is not explicitly found in the Bible (unlike, say, the commandment against adultery or Our Lord on marriage and divorce) but is a matter of canon law.

Now, since Fr. Cutié took this vow freely, and agreed to be bound by it, he is still bound by it until released by the authorities in our church. He has not yet been laicised, but I imagine this act counts towards getting that expedited.

Let me give Bishop Frade an example: it’s a bit like all those clergy in San Joaquin who have been deposed for affiliating with the Southern Cone.

Hey, maybe they should try the “We don’t recognise that promise in our church!” bit on 815, whaddya think?

I believe there is a gloss on the text in some Anglican manuscripts; Let your yes be yes and your no be no, and your WTF be WTF.

“That promise is not recognised by our church.”

Oh, man, there are so many tempting responses to this one!!!

Chris – your Anglican Investigator series needs to get a a good bit weirder just to keep up with real life.

The TEC priesthood: the career of choice for former Catholic priests, oceanographers, cops, disgraced politicians, and anyone else who just can’t hack it in their present job.

Makes a mockery of any claims that we are part of the church catholic…yet again!

Actually, there is a Biblical requirement–but it is for overseers (episkopoi) to be married. 1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5. Similarly Titus 1:6.

The publicity serves a purpose: hispanic congregations in the Episcopal Church are, generally, growing. Cutie is popular in the hispanic community. Do the math.

Tom, are you serious? Those verses clearly do not require them to be married but to be married only once. As Paul himself was not married it is ridiculous to read his prescriptions any other way.

Where does it say in the Bibile you have to wear “episcopal” gladrags and mitres whenever one processes into the church.?

sorry “Bible” of course.

Where does it say in the Bible that we must be Sola Scriptura?

“Blessed are those who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven” – J.C., not to mention what St. Paul had to say.

Mr. Janousek.
I agree that this was tacky, tacky, tacky. But if you are asking about what St. Paul said, I would refer you to letters to Timothy and Titus where he said that a presbyter should be the “husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:1-5, Titus 1:5-9). This does not sound as if he is calling for celibacy at all.

It might also pay you to do some reading on the canons issued from the seven Ecumenical Councils. Some of them dealt with presbyters who were married. So this “tradition” of celibacy is not something which the Church Catholic has always had, but is a relatively recent (12th – 13th century, perhaps?) addtion by the Bishop of Rome.

Regarding my previous comment…

I have ceased to believe the claims that Anglicanism is somehow a catholic sister with the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. It simply does not carry the marks: one, holy, catholic and apostolic. One of the current presenting symptoms is Anglicanism’s inability at every level to identify and correct error.

Yes, there are some very “catholic” people in Anglicanism, but having some catholic-thinking/acting people in a denomination does not make it catholic.

We are a protestant denomination. Any other claims are simply delusional.

That said, Canterbury is simply one alternative (and an increasingly unattractive one) for how we order our common life.

As I wrote on T19: “Did Bishop Frade let Fr. Cutie know that TEC is an official member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, a pro-abortion group? Did the bishop review with Fr. Cutie the 1994 GC resolution allowing for abortion? Does Fr. Cutie know that he is entering a church that does not support Life as understood by the Roman Catholic Church? Or is it all just a personal decision because Fr. Cutie didn’t want to be “just” a lay Catholic? This is more serious that a former RC priest wanting to get married, this is rejecting the RC position on Life.”

Don’t tell me you didn’t see this one coming.

Wanna bet he turns out like some other wacko priests that left Rome to come to 815. We could start a list.
I’ll go first.

Genpo

Actually, mandatory clerical celibacy in the wester n church dates to about the 11th century, although local synods enforced the practice at least from the 3rd century. As noted above, the scriptural evidence is mixed: Paul’s comments in I Cor 7 would seem to apply, if one reads the relevant passages in Timothy/Titus as proscriptive of polygamy rather than prescriptive of marriage. Certainly the testimony of East and West both testify to the former reading, as relates to bishops.

In any case, this isn’t an argument proper to Catholics. 1.) It’s a discipline, not a doctrine, as we often note, and 2.) Its a very useful, profitable discipline for many reasons. The vast majority of priests honor their vows and live fruitful, contented lives.

It took him a whole month after getting caught with a lady to seek out the Episcopal Church and get received? What’s the big hurry? I mean, I know quite a few people who took this plunge, but even on a fast track it usually takes longer than that. I suppose if you checked the calendar for the bishop’s parish visits you might pick a parish on the schedule within a month, but honestly what’s the big hurry? Is Cutie-pie such a big prize?

I think all Fr Cutie had to do to be received in the Episcopal Oranization was be able to recite the MDGs and genuflect at the appropriate places.

P.S. If you don’t go sola Scriptura, you will have those Piskies announcing new and different extra-Biblical revelations every couple of weeks. When I first read Article Six, I thought the Episcopalians had it right: that everything you need to know for Salvation is either stated in the Bible or provable thereby, and that anything that is not stated or provable by Scripture should not be required as an article of faith. You could, of course, still believe it to be true. But now they have global warming and the MDGs as articles of faith.

Clown Celebrant, figures on the relative sizes of the Episcopal diocese versus the Roman Catholic archdiocese in Miami are 38,000 to 800,000.

Fr. Cutié apparently has a BIG Hispanic following.

Bishop Frade perhaps maybe kinda hoping some of them will follow him all the way into TEC?

Say, for instance, 2,000 parishioners decide to follow Fr. Cutié wherever he goes (just pulling that figure out of thin air).

For the RC archdiocese, that’s a 0.25% loss. Not going to make the Archbishop happy, but it’s a fleabite.

For the Episcopalian diocese, that’s a 5% gain. Considering the figures we’ve been seeing on TEC numbers, any diocese that grows by 5% is a big, big success story. Add in the cachet of increasing cultural diversity by outreach to the Hispanic community, and the PB will probably fly down herself in her very own aeroplane for the photo-op and big splashy story in all the papers!

Fr. Cutie is not only not requesting laicization, he’s inviting, or perhaps is automatically in a state of, excommunication, isn’t he? He is declaring publicly his intent to continue an illicit sexual relationship. Until/unless, if his girlfriend is divorced, her marriage is annulled, they are in sin, in addition to his ignored vow, and so neither should be receiving Catholic communion. (If she’s a widow, they are in sin until he is released from his vow and they are married.)

Back in the 60s, my parents knew an Episcopal woman who became emotionally involved with a Roman Catholic priest. This was one of those things that was discussed by the grownups at the kitchen table after the kids were — thought to be — asleep.

The process for him to leave the Catholic Church and to eventually marry her took about three years, IIRC.

He met with his Bishop. His Bishop met with the Episcopal Bishop. The three of them met together. He and the woman (my Mom’s best friend) met with the Episcopal Bishop. All of that took at least a year. Then he had to petition the Pope for release from his vows, and that took up the majority of the time; I just checked with my mother and she said they waited two years for Vatican approval!

The process that Fr. Cutie is going through is closer to signing a first round draft choice, not a cleric.

There is no Biblicacl warrant for a celibate priesthood, then again there is no Biblical warrant for using computers, electricity and combbustion engines! We leave that sort of thinking to the Amish.

The Catholic Church recognizes that there is no Biblical warrant for this and thus is part of their Discipline; which is something that can be changed but isn’t without great deliberation and thought. Discipline, something that Anglicanism and TEC would know little about.

BTW, the official practice of clerical celibacy started soon after the edict of Milan when the church swole from 10% of the Empire’s population to 95%. It was suddenly flooded with new converts who brought muc of their pagan baggage with them. Consecrated virginity was an important and common virtue in the early Church along with monastacism. The churches, especially in the West, found that their most committed and counter-cultural priests came from the celibate and monastic orders. The council of Elvira officially embraced this and a motion to impose this throught the East and West was narrowly defeated as the 2nd Eucumenical Council in Constantinople.

I honestly think that if the Catholic Church, its priests and lay people, were to stop apologizing for the celebacy requirement and hold up the men who freely take it as icons for what is ailing a sexually saturiated and materialistic culture then the church would have plenty of priest. Just as when the Church first existed in a pluralistic, sexually depraved culture.

WRT quick reception, I was received into the Catholic Church by a priest on 6 days acquaintance. I had written some stuff that showed him I knew what I was doing, and he spent enough time talking with me that knew I was stable, so he received and confirmed me. I also know of an Episcopal minister and wife who were received by the bishop on fairly short acquaintance, although it was done privately in the cathedral rectory without new presence.

Even more fluffy goodness from Bishop Frade:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/29/national/main5048651.shtml

“On The Early Show Friday, Rodriguez, whose family in Miami has been close to Cutie for years, spoke with Bishop Leo Frade, the head of the Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida. He officiated at the ceremony Thursday at which Cutie and the woman who’s now his fiancée converted.

Rodriguez said, “I know Father Cutie believes, because he said it on this program, that what he did was wrong. He broke an oath and he lived a lie for two years. Are you concerned at all about the message that you’re sending your parishioners by inviting someone like that into your church?”

“Well,” Frade responded, “for a single person, kissing and loving another single woman, I think that a scandal would have been if he would have been — if she would have been a married woman or something like that. But Father Cutie is a single person, loving another single person, and when you have to obey your heart, indeed, the teaching that he could tell our people is that love is able to conquer everything.”

I was going to snark, but I think I’ll just let that sit there and we can all walk around it and admire it from all angles.

One of the friars at lunch today noted; “When Anglican priests move to the Catholic Church, they do so out of conviction and principle. A Cardinal Newman move. When Catholic priests move to the Anglican church they do so because they don’t want to keep their pants zipped! A Bill Clinton move.”

LOLOLOL!

Fr. Philip, OP

“Bishop Frade said Thursday afternoon. ”That promise is not recognized by our church. If you can find it in the Bible that priests should be celibate, that will be corrected”

Bishop Frade is right. The promise should not be recognized, and it is not Scriptural in origin. Confer with Luther.

carl

Even if you were right about celibacy, carl, I’m a little shocked to hear a Christian argue that vows freely taken can be freely violated. Of course, protestants are generally ok with people abrogating their marital vows, so why not ordination vows? After all, Luther, a monastic priest, threw his vows out the window and those are vows that would be recognized in the Anglican tradition.

Fuinseiog, that is beyond snark. Good Lord. If there are any faithful Christians left in Frade’s diocese, they’ve got to be thinking about going into hiding.

Whether there ought to be celibate priests, or have to be celibate priests, is rather beside the point of this case. Cutie went into a ministry in which this is required, and he made a vow in all seriousness in service of Christ’s church. For him to change his mind is one thing; for him to treat the seriousness of his former intentions and vocation so casually is entirely another.

Carl -
While I agree with what you said, Fr. Cutie did take a vow of celibacy. There are ways to un-take that vow within the Roman Catholic Church. Apparently, he did not want to wait for the RC bureaucratic wheels to grind out that process.

Bishop Frade is very blatantly ignoring the vow that the un-Rev Cutie took. This is just typical Episcopal Bishop hair-splitting. It makes the Episcopal Church look stupid, as if it didn’t already.

Carl, while the vow of celibacy is indeed lesser than the vow of matrimony (Marriage being a sacrament with us, as is Holy Orders – while the vow of celibacy is part of the discipline of the clerical state, it is not the defining part of the sacrament), may I draw your attention to what Bishop Frade said in the radio interview?

Viz., that as far as he was concerned, Fr. Cutié was okay because he was single and she was single, but if she had been married, that would have been different, and then at the end, that the moral to be drawn from this business was ‘amor vincit omnia’ – leaving aside the fact that, since he and she are both Catholics, as far as we’re concerned (if she contracted a sacramental marriage, if her spouse is still alive, and if that marriage has not been annulled, she *is* married), why should one vow be privileged over another?

Either love alone is the determining criterion – in which case, it would not matter if he was married, she was married, they both were married – or love, though a good, is a lesser good in some cases and keeping one’s vows is the greater good.

Either vows are to be kept, or love excuses all acts. I am going to give Bishop Frade the benefit of the doubt in this instance, and imagine that he thinks adultery is wrong because it breaks the vow of fidelity involved in marriage, not because ‘it causes pain to another person’ – if ‘emotional pain’ is the only reason it would be wrong, then equally a rejected suitor for a single woman or man would feel pain and be hurt when their love was rejected for the successful suitor – but if he does so, then he contradicts himself that “love is able to conquer everything.”

If love is the only thing to be considered, then an adulterous affair is okay if both parties truly love one another. If the higher good of fidelity is to be considered, then even a true and genuine love cannot be the excuse for breaching a promise.

Try getting married in Colorado, then getting married again in Virginia without first having your Colorado marriage civilly dissolved, and see how far “But this is a completely different state to the one I made the original vow in!” gets you

Beyond snark, indeed, but this demands a comment:

the teaching that he could tell our people is that love is able to conquer everything.”

If memory serves, that was Robin Williams’ gospel in What Dreams May Come. Romantic love, of course, which is the great God of this culture.

Yeah, Katherine, it’s a pippin, isn’t it?

Hey, polyamorous folks! Here’s the diocese for you! As long as you’re all (collectively) single – and why wouldn’t you be, since as of yet there is no legal group marriage in any country I know of* – then the Bish wants to hear from you!

(*I don’t mean polygamy or polyandry; I mean I don’t know anywhere that permits Joe to be married to Jill, Jill to be married to Tom, Tom to be married to Angie, Angie to be married to Joe, Joe to be married to Tom, and Jill to be married to Angie in a group marriage).

“I’m a little shocked to hear a Christian argue that vows freely taken can be freely violated.”

This man was bound to keep his vow so long as he continued under the authority of Rome. It was a vow to Rome. It was not a vow to God. Absent the tradition of Rome, there is no basis whatsoever for requiring this vow of a man.

In fact, the vow stands in direct contradiction of Scripture. Man has forbidden what God has allowed. Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor 7 do not include instructions for mandatory celibacy. Paul allows for freedom in this matter. Each man is allowed to follow his own conscience. It is Rome that has laid this slavery upon men, and not God.

The vow of celibacy is an illegitimate vow founded upon an illegitimate use of authority. Why should I require a man to be bound by the vow once he has recognized the illegitimate authority behind the vow?

“Of course, protestants are generally ok with people abrogating their marital vows, so why not ordination vows?”

The marriage covenant is founded upon a much higher authority than the RCC. There is no divine requirement for celibacy; only a man-made imposition. And (in my case at least) you have badly missed the mark regarding divorce.

“After all, Luther, a monastic priest, threw his vows out the window and those are vows that would be recognized in the Anglican tradition.”

Luther threw out his monastic vows because they were predicated solely upon the authority of the RCC. Since he rejected the authority of that church, he had no further reason to feel bound by them.

carl

“when you have to obey your heart”

You know, I just remembered that’s the same excuse Francesca da Rimini offers when Dante meets her and Paolo in the Circle of the Lustful in Hell.

(Did I mention my take on this Great Romantic Tragedy is “Francesca Da Rimini Is A Skanky Ho”? No? Well, I have now)

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

Carl, whether it’s a vow taken in religion or a contract to buy a new pair of trousers, there are conditions.

Fr. Cutié may, as you have said, rejected the authority of Rome (that’s kinda obvious by now, I guess). Nevertheless, he has not applied to be dispensed from that vow – he has not followed the procedures. As far as we’re concerned, he’s still bound until released.

Bishop Frade’s take on it is lacking in rigour; if Fr. Cutié need not be bound by a vow of celibacy taken as a Catholic when he rejects Catholicism, then why should Mr. Cutié be bound by a vow of matrimony taken as a Catholic when he rejects Catholicism?

Why is TEC so exercised currently about the notion of “Abandonment of Communion” that it is deposing clergy on this charge? If vows mean nothing as soon as someone changes his or her mind, what’s the big deal?

Fuinseoig

“may I draw your attention to what Bishop Frade said in the radio interview?”

Fair enough. I was agreeing with the very narrow statement that I quoted. I did not intend to convey agreement with everything Bishop Frade said.

“As far as we’re concerned, he’s still bound until released.”

That is the nature of authority. The RCC felt it still had authority over Luther.

What bothers me about this event is that I have no reason to think Cutie is doctrinally any less a Catholic today then he was yesterday. He has simply sought a way to free himself from his vow without rejecting the authority he once recognized. Should the RCC change its position of celibacy, do I have any reason to believe he would not return to the fold?

If Cutie had said “I reject the authority of Rome, and so must leave” and then concluded “I am no longer bound by my vows” I would have no trouble with his action. But that’s not what he did. He let his desire for marriage supersede his own truth claims. He hasn’t rejected Roman authority. He simply fled from it to get what he wanted without consequence.

“if Fr. Cutié need not be bound by a vow of celibacy taken as a Catholic when he rejects Catholicism, then why should Mr. Cutié be bound by a vow of matrimony taken as a Catholic when he rejects Catholicism?”

Because marriage is a covenant made before and predicated upon the authority of God – whose authority can never be rejected or superseded.

“Why is TEC so exercised currently about the notion of “Abandonment of Communion” that it is deposing clergy on this charge? If vows mean nothing as soon as someone changes his or her mind, what’s the big deal?”

Even illegitimate authority seeks to defend its prerogatives. The legitimacy of authority is not analogous with the power to rule. But it seems that this example hoists you by your own petard. For are not these deposed men breaking vows to obey their bishops? Upon what grounds do they justify their action? And yet their action is justified, for we are to obey God and not men.

carl

Carl, you’ve hit on the crux of the matter.

It’s not just a question of “Episcopalian clergy can get married and Roman clergy can’t”, there’s a whole lot of other things involved.

If he has genuinely been mulling this over for a couple of years, and has come to conclusions on doctrines from the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome to the Immaculate Conception different to those he has to hold as a Catholic and a priest, then sure – he’s right to leave if he can’t believe. That’s honest.

It’s the way the whole thing has been handled – the initial scandal-sheet revelation of the romance, then this ‘private ceremony of reception’ which was attended by a big media circus and seems to have come as a complete shock and unexpected development to the Archbishop – that is so unsettling.

There are exit protocols (for want of a better term). He can be laicised, even if that would take a year or two – if he’s been thinking this over for two years, another year is not so long, right? He can even leave and join another denomination, if he cannot hold the Catholic faith in its entirety as a layman.

He does not appear to have done any of this, or even begun the process. He is still – technically and ontologically – a Roman Catholic, yet he’s been accepted into another denomination, has been given a ministry position (even though it is as a lay preacher not a cleric), is making plans to marry, is (presumably) making plans to become an Episcopalian clergyman. And this is not supposed to be any kind of a problem for his old church?

It’s on a par with marrying your second wife before the decree nisi on your first marriage has even been issued, to use a crude analogy.

Fuinseoig: “It’s on a par with marrying your second wife before the decree nisi on your first marriage has even been issued, to use a crude analogy.”

Crude analogy to King Henry XVIII?

Truth Unites… and Divides

“Crude analogy to King Henry XVIII?”

Ummm…. King Henry the 18th? If I were you, I would slap my keyboard around severely for making such a typo. Unless you are using a Mac, in which case it is entirely understandable. Macs have .. difficulties.

carl

TUaD, Henry didn’t occur to me, but hey… that explains a lot!

Though I do want to see some serious conversation about what doctrines exactly Fr. Cutié has difficulty with; I could respect him a lot more if he says “I can no longer hold to Transubstantiation/the Immaculate Conception/Papal Supremacy” or such, and that’s why he left.

If the one and only reason that he left was in order to be a ‘married priest’, then whoa. What’s he going to preach as an Episcopalian? How’s he going to reconcile the disparate teachings? If he does make it all the way to being ordained as an Episcopalian priest, and he’s standing at the altar on Sunday presiding over a Communion Service, what does he think he will be doing?

Carl,

I was just testing if anyone would catch the typo.

With regards to the SFIF thread on Church of Scotland and Carl Trueman whereby you engage your “nemesis” David Handy, you could rebut his argument that the Baptist seminary in Richmond, VA is theologically sound with this post where the argument shows that it’s an apostate seminary.

David Handy is a LibProt through and through who likes to play dress-up in Conservative clothes. He is a kool-aid drinker in the hermeneutics of “Higher Criticism” and is addicted to egalitarianism and WO.

I hope Conservative Catholics fight tooth and nail against Liberal Catholics like Rahner and Kung and their disciples.

Carl,

In Catholic canon law a vow is a deliberate and free promise made to God.

The marriage covenant is founded upon a much higher authority than the RCC.

ecause marriage is a covenant made before and predicated upon the authority of God – whose authority can never be rejected or superseded.

My point entirely. Yet your religion is ready to toss the marriage vow, allowing remarriage after a divorce. At least, I’m not aware of any protestant ecclessial communities that excommunicate after divorce/remarriage. An uncle of mine, a Baptist, resigned as an active deacon after his divorce (but before he re-married), but that’s the most severe sanction I’ve known of. Even in that case, he was given the title “deacon emeritus”.

And again, it’s carl making this issue doctrinal, not the Catholic Church. That is, of course, a fundamental error.

It is Rome that has laid this slavery upon men, and not God.

You are certainly entitled to your religious opinions, though they fail the (Anglican) tests of scripture, tradition, and reason. For myself, it seems you have drunk deeply of the sexual obsession endemic to western culture.

Luther threw out his monastic vows because they were predicated solely upon the authority of the RCC.

Actually, monastic vows have been known from what Anglicans call “the undivided church”, and hence, have authority throughout Christianity.

FW Ken

“[I]t seems you have drunk deeply of the sexual obsession endemic to western culture.”

Yep, that’s me. Mr Libertine. I have commented regularly at SFIF for almost three years now, and if you had read my comments on that site you would know that every single wife has been fully and completely informed that her tenure as wife was totally dependent upon her ability to fulfill my every fantasy, and to stay below the age of 35. That, and she had to be OK with the mistresses. Sadly, none have worked out for the long haul, but I will keep trying. As they say, the seventh time is the charm. A true libertine would not have done any thing so honorable.

carl

That’s it! Carl is really Larry King! And I thought he was so nice…

Carl is a Calvinist. This is an identifiable and respectable Protestant Christian strain, although not one that Roman Catholics can agree with, and nor do I mostly, but drinking deeply of the modern sexual obsession is a bit much. As is, TU&D, describing David Handy as drinking the kool-aid. Handy’s views on Scripture have legitimacy among Christians, including maybe the present successor to Peter, just as Calvinists have legitimacy. I disagree with Handy on WO, too, but neither carl nor Handy is an off-the-edge wacko. I disagree with both less than I do with, say, Leo Frade.

Katherine,

I have known many Calvinists in my time, but none who’s comments were as bizarre and unchristian as carl’s on vows, the scriptures, and celibacy.

I’ve said many times that I respect my protestant (and Orthodox) brothers and sisters with whom I have theological disagreements, among them yourself, our esteemed host, the Editor, and many others on this side. Most of you are, most likely, far more faithful Christians than I could think of being. There is a distinct difference between principled disagreement with the Catholic Faith and anti-catholic prejudice. carl, however, has misrepresented scripture, tradition, and reason (falling back, again, on the Anglican formulation) in his comments. That isn’t respectable; it is identifiable, but not as historic Christianity.

For the record, referring to celibacy as “slavery” smacks of sexual obsession, so I’ll stand by that comment.

Katherine: “Handy’s views on Scripture have legitimacy among Christians, including maybe the present successor to Peter,…”

Baal had “legitimacy” among Jews, Indulgences had and still has “legitimacy” among Catholics, gay marriage and same-sex blessings have “legitimacy” among some professing Christians.

Take a look at this article about Rome’s Battle for the Bible.

Excerpts: “Pope Benedict XVI addressed the synod on October 14 and lamented the divide between biblical scholars and theologians. Church leaders have warned that this divide leads many Catholics to question the vitality and authority of God’s Word.

“We should read this discussion in light of Pope Benedict XVI’s book Jesus of Nazareth. He comes down as a conservative on issues of critical scholarship, though he is not likely a Chicago Statement inerrantist.”

The first draft at Vatican II said “the entire sacred Scripture is absolutely immune from error.” But the final draft concluded that the “books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”

Matters related to history and science fell outside the purview of inerrancy. “This significantly reduced biblical problems raised by Roman Catholic scholars, but it also went against the church’s historical view of Scripture’s truthfulness.”

“It looks like the papered-over compromise from Vatican II is coming to the fore at the conference in Rome,” said John Woodbridge, research professor of church history and the history of Christian thought at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. “After years of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ they are asking and telling.”

Catholic challenges to inerrancy in the late 20th century went against longstanding church teaching. No less an authority than Augustine of Hippo set the church’s standard.

The Vatican subsequently launched a decades-long crackdown on higher criticism. At the same time, controversies over the authority of Scripture were wreaking havoc in Protestant seminaries and denominations.

More recently, Catholic seminaries and universities have tolerated scholars who deny the historicity of some biblical events, such as Jesus’ miracles. Pope Benedict XVI is an Augustinian, and his years as a university professor have acquainted him with the challenges posed by critical scholarship.”

Katherine, David Handy is a LibProt who wholeheartedly subscribes to Higher Criticism. And this Higher Criticism which has wreaked havoc in mainline LibProt denominations has and will continue its corrosive acid. If you think that because it has “legitimacy” among Christians, then it’s okay, then let the warnings fall upon deaf ears.

If the Vatican/Magisterium wants to drink of Higher Criticism as espoused through liberal Catholics like Kung and Rahner, well, what can you do.

Have at it.

I’ll grant, Ken, that carl is more anti-Catholic than I like to see. And yes, priestly celibacy is chosen, and priests can be laicized and released if they change their minds, so the “slavery” doesn’t apply.

Ken, you know where you stand, and why, but you don’t spend your time telling me, for instance, that I’m going to hell if I don’t agree with you. It’s the stridency of some of the inter-Christian arguments that really bothers me. Compared to Muslims or the genuinely sex-obsessed culture around us (or in TEC), my differences with fellow-Christians pale.

TU&D, I’m really not interested in a critical study of David Handy and his theology. Is he the new Sarah Hey? Nor do I think that, because the Vatican tolerates a wide range of opinion in some matters, that the whole edifice is unfaithful to the gospel. Good grief.

I was commenting directly to Carl in my original comment about David Handy.

Disagreement with Protestantism is not necessarily anti-Protestantism.

Disagreement with Eastern Orthodoxy is not necessarily anti-Eastern Orthodoxy.

Disagreement with Catholicism is not necessarily anti-Catholicism.

I wish people would have the wherewithal to understand this instead of overreacting.

I think this “there is no Scriptural warrant” position regarding the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church as to a vow of celibacy for priests is nonsense, especially when coming from those in the Anglican or Episcopo groupings. There is no “Scriptural warrant” for the founding of national churches by overweight, horny English kings either, but that certainly didn’t hinder Henry VIII and his subsequent followers.

FW Ken

Bizarre? They are actually quite conventionally Protestant. You should read Luther if you think I created this out of whole cloth. The underlying fundamental issue is the legitimacy of the authority of the RCC. If it is not legitimate, then vows made under its auspices have no force. The modern world doesn’t like to admit it (and I get called “anti-Catholic” all the time because of it) but the Reformation was not some big semantic mis-understanding. It was an actual fight over mutually-exclusive definitions of the Gospel.

On SFIF this morning, I asked whether a man who is married in the RCC and so vows to raise his children in the RCC is still objectively bound by that vow once he leaves the RCC. The answer to that question will depend the legitimacy of the truth claims of the RCC. If they are false, then the man will not be objectively bound by the vow. He will in fact be responsible to repudiate that vow in favor of proper instruction. Would you expect otherwise of him? And if the teachings of the RCC are in fact false, would God expect otherwise of him?

carl

Katherine,

I would never tell you, carl, or anyone else you are going to hell. While you might espouse “doctrines of demons” and be the “firstborn of satan” (I ascribe neither to you, needless to say), it is not for me to know the eternal purpose of God, who, after all, made us for fellowship with Himself. If nothing else (and I borrow here as before): you might well go to heaven for following the light you have while I go to hell for not following the light I have.

None of this is a matter of relativism: doctrine matters, what we believe matters. But God wants us in heaven. If our hearts remain open to Him, He will lead us into Truth.

carl -

I was born and raised Southern Baptist. As an Episcopalian, I moved in or was well-acquainted in evangelical, charismatic, and anglo-catholic circles at various times. I know, love, and respect many protestants. To call your ideology “conventionally protestant” is no more accurate than your takes on scripture, the Church, or much of anything else you have said.

Best wishes.

And I return to your fundamental error, which is to make doctrinal what is actually disciplinary. A discipline, as I have said and can show, that is quite beneficial.

Perhaps you, like a Baptist friend of mine, don’t believe any church can tell it’s members what is right and what is wrong. Perhaps you think you should do what is good in your own eyes (that worked so well for the Israelites!).

It’s been said before: every man has an infallible pope. Most see him in the mirror.

Not bad. Not bad at all. The hero arrives on stage for the finale. Cue the orchestra. The concluding recitative begins. A little condescension. The rhetorical flourish complete with dismissive wave of the hand. The curtains falls. And we even get an encore. I suppose in hopes that no one will notice he didn’t touch that last question I asked. But then, no Roman Catholic has touched that question on either board. More’s the pity.

How many Protestants out there think a former Catholic would be bound by vows made under the auspices of the RCC? Must be quite a few seeing as I am so unconventional. In the meantime, I think I will turn on PBS and see if I can catch this act again.

carl

You last question as been answered, by protestants as well as Catholics. The answer is yes: when you make a vow freely, you are morally bound to it until/unless released.

Now, what other nonsense can you utter? Factual statements are generally helpful when presenting your case. Unsupported assertions aren’t.

Just so we are clear, FW Ken. You think that a man who vows to raise his children Catholic is obligated to keep that vow even if he leaves the RCC? And you think your typical average Protestant (as opposed to bizarre Protestants like myself) would find that idea completely non-controversial?

carl

We were discussing ordination vows. But what I do think is that a Christian is bound by his word. You seem to be looking for legalistic ways around that.
I’m not sure the promise to raise one’s children Catholic is even required anymore. If it is, it would be easily dispensed.

Several protestants on this thread have answered your question, carl,at least the one germane to this thread.

Let me re-phrase something: as my Southern Baptist father taught me:

a man’s word is his bond.

Carl –

I have to say that you are right on target (of course, I’m a Calvinist, so that might influence my thinking). That is one of the problems of making vows – you bind yourself to something that may be very bad. In the context you were duiscussing, one way to think is that the RCC presents itself as the truth from God; a former RC might argue that a vow to that church was fraudulently induced or there were false pretenses involved.

If you made the vow to God and not to the institution, you may not have any good options. I’m reminded of the man in Judges who vowed to sacrifice the first thing he saw returning home and it was his daughter. Keeping a bad vow can be worse than being a vow breaker.

Also, I don’t know how much experience you have with FW Ken, but my experience is that once he gets his dander up, neither logic nor reason will avail you, particularly if it relates to his Catholic sensibilities (from both observation and experience). Reading his comments above, I think you’ve reached the point of no return with him. As a counterpoint, Katherine has been a real balm to me (whether she knew it or not) when Catholic-Protestant issues arise.

Good luck!

neither logic nor reason will avail you

Would that logic or reason were offered instead of misrepresentations of scripture, Christian history, and the Catholic Faith.

Katherine is, indeed, a delight and a counter-point to the idiosyncratic protestantism in which carl, and apparently you, Mr. Scott, indulge yourselves. In fact, one of the best Christians I know is a Calvinist protestant, and he never needs to define his faith in counter-point to the Catholic Church. What’s you guy’s problem?

But then, who expects integrity from men who spend their time looking for ways to not keep their word. The fellow of whom I speak cared for a sick wife for 49 years. That is a man who knows how to keep his word.

FW Ken-

Okay. But we do agree that Katherine is a good gal!

BTW, Mr. Scott, I really don’t remember having a sharp exchange with you, certainly not over Catholic/Protestant issues. Unless, of course, you post as the execrable “sodbuster”, who really does have a problem with simple facts.

Ken and Carl,

Whoa guys, let’s take it down a notch. Carl is not a libertine; he’s just an anti-Catholic Prot. And yes Carl, calling clerical celibacy “slavery” is being anti-Catholic. Just call the Pope the “whore of Babylon” and be done.

To answer your question Carl; a vow, any vow, freely taken is binding until released (so long as the thing vowed is not intrinsically evil, like vowing to murder someone). That means that yes; a man who vows to raise his children Catholic but himself leaves the Church is still bound by that vow. Now since you apparently think the Catholic Church is intrinsically evil you might be willing to give the guy a pass.

The underlying fundamental issue is the legitimacy of the authority of the RCC.

You know, that’s an issue that cuts both ways.

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (Matthew 28:18)
He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. (Matthew 10:40)
Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. (John 20:21-23)

Anyone familiar with the concept of Apostolic Succession knows that it is the passing on of the authority Christ gave His Apostles and disciples to their successors. Now you are of the opinion that such authority did not pass legitimately on to the Catholic Church. From whom then, did Protestant ministers get their authority? The Reformers could not have received a legitimate mission from the Catholic Church because a) the bishops who ordained many of them priests did not do so in order for them to lead people out of the Catholic Church; or b) the Catholic Church from which the Reformers sprung had no legitimacy of her own to confer upon them. From what source does Protestant authority come?

And if you argue that it comes immediately from God then how do you prove this? By what signs are we to believe that you (i.e. Protestants) have any mission from God or any legitimate authority?

If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (John 10:37-38)
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. (John 14:10-13)

Where are the great Protestant signs and miracles that we should believe that God has sent them instead of the Church that can trace her succession of authority back to the Apostles and Christ who gave it to them and still performs miracles to this day?

James G

FW Ken-

I know that we’ve had more than one, but I only remember being accused of false witness, because that really bugged me. I actually feel better that you don’t remember, because in one instance I was genuinely trying to apologize for the wording (or whatever), and if it’s now a bygone then so much the better.

Mr. Scott -

I truly don’t remember it, but if you were trying to apologize and I didn’t hear it, then I owe you an apology, which I now honestly render. I do get my “dander up” when people say things about Catholics that aren’t true. She is my mother. If you are going to say you don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, that’s fine. But if you want to say Catholics worship Mary, that’s false witness. “You”, in this case, is generic, not personal to A. Scott.

Please understand that I have experienced my aunt asking me what I thought about the pope making Mary a 4th member of the Holy Trinity. Of course, everyone knows she’s crazy as a betsy bug and it has nothing to do with her religion. But others have said similar things too many times. Shortly after becoming Catholic, a long-time family friend opined that it was ok, “Catholics are people too”. A cousin, bound and determined to get me “saved out of the Catholic Church” was easily refuted because about half of the Catholic doctrines to which he objected weren’t really Catholic beliefs. I set him a Catechism later and told him to object to what Catholics really believe if he likes.I didn’t intend it ugly, he really did mean well and I appreciated it.

I could go on, but do you see why I get irritated, perhaps too easily?

On the other hand, I have enjoyed the libcat posts Christopher puts up. Indeed, I am probably more appalled by those people than protestants, and I know that Chris knows they aren’t “the Catholic Church”.

Well said, James G, though probably wasted. Two notes: I said that calling celibacy “slavery” partakes of the sexual obsession endemic to this culture. “Libertine” was carl’s attempt at parody. Second, it’s the Roman Church herself that’s “the Whore of Babylon”; the pope is the anti-christ. You need to get these things straight.

OK, so we have made some progress.

“[A] vow, any vow, freely taken is binding until released (so long as the thing vowed is not intrinsically evil, like vowing to murder someone). That means that yes; a man who vows to raise his children Catholic but himself leaves the Church is still bound by that vow.”

I expected that answer, because any other would cause your position to collapse in chaos. It was the consistent answer. But I think there is an important qualification lurking within that answer that needs to be developed. Please bear with me a moment while I take a quick detour through the alley and in the side door. We will eventually get back to the lobby.

The Mormons have secret temple rituals which they swear on oath to their god on the planet Kolob to never reveal. Of course, there is no god on Kolob let alone a planet called Kolob. But there are Christians who have come out of Mormonism and (after conversion) written down those secret rituals for all to read in direct violation of their oath. These rituals really are quite illuminating in regard to the polytheistic paganism of the Mormon religion. In this case, it would seem a positive good to violate the oath in that an apologetic purpose is served in educating people about the true nature of Mormonism. Since refusing to reveal a secret ritual is not intrinsically evil, we can’t slip out of the vow that way. Are we caught?

No. Who really cares about a pagan oath to a non-existent god on a non-existent planet. The vow is invalid on its face. No man who leaves a false religion for the Christian faith is not bound by any vow tied to the now-abandoned religion. It is for freedom that we were set free. I hope I don’t have to defend that notion any further. But it does serve to illustrate the presupposition in this statement:

“[A] vow, any vow, freely taken is binding until released”

It presumes the vow in question is associated with the true God.

And so we arrive at the lobby. The vows of obedience are associated with the RCC. If one presumes (like, say, the Reformers) that Rome is a false church that teaches a false gospel, and knows not God, then any vows taken under its auspices are likewise invalid on their face. To a Christian, they have all the validity of the Mormon vows on temple ritual. So the question of the permanence of the vows turns upon the objective truth of Roman truth claims. Depending on the answer given, the vows are either objectively valid or invalid. But their validity does not depend upon the integrity of the oath giver. It depends upon the authority of the one in whose name the oath was taken. It is the difference between Heaven and Kolob.

So in the end, a vow is not a vow after all.

carl

Ummm… that should have been…

“No man who leaves a false religion for the Christian faith is bound by any vow tied to the now-abandoned religion.”

Carl,

I’m more than a little puzzled.

When you receive an answer to your question (which you’ve been clamoring for) you basically say “I knew that would be the answer”, and then you proceed to deconstruct said answer. But in doing so, you make statements (“No man who leaves a false religion for the Christian faith is not bound by any vow tied to the now-abandoned religion”) which echo your original question, and are baseless. You can’t just say that a prior vow is not binding; you have no position to do so, seeing as how you do not know the full circumstances of such vows – such as the intent of the promiser, and the established rules of the vow (as in “now, understand that this vow is binding even if you leave our church”).

It would appear from your comments that your goal is to create a scenario which will result in Catholic commenters making statements that are critical of Catholicism. Why? No one is forced to be Catholic, and those who are know the rules which they are expected to obey of their own free will. Some choose to leave for other churches – as do Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Buddhists, etc. What’s unique in the Father Cutie case is that he made priestly vows which were fully informed, freely and solemnly given, and irrevocable within the framework that the made them. He can leave that framework, but he cannot walk away from the vows – to quote from Super Chicken, “he knew the job was dangerous when he took it”.

IMHO, to say that changing circumstances allow negation of a vow makes the concept of vows completely worthless. Either you mean what you say and then face up to the consequences (be they moral, spiritual, or secular) if you change your mind, or don’t bother making the vow at all.

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. (Matthew 5:33-37)

Ordination vows are not made “on Odin’s beard” or some other such malarkey; they are vows made to God. Just as a marriage vow is not invalidated if the wife proves false because the vow was made to God, so a man’s vow to the Church is not dependent on the merit of the Church.

Now to your specific example. An oath is different from a vow. The validity depends on the integrity of the oath taker because it is being made on his honor and not on some thing that will exact revenge if the oath is broken. So even though your “Mormon” is taking an oath to “Kolob” he is still actually pledging it on his honor. As such, he is no longer an honorable man if he brakes that oath since you freely admit that keeping it is not intrinsically evil. And the so-called “apologetic purpose” is diminished because it is coming from a person who is by definition dishonest; but then I’m sure that you found Maria Monk a credible witness :p. Besides, anyone outside of Mormonism who is too ignorant to see the incompatibility of their theology and Christianity isn’t going to be persuaded by talk of “Kolob” since they apparently don’t know God from the Little Prince.

As far as your “lobby” is concerned; one would have to prove that when a Catholic makes a vow to God that it is not actually God the vow is being made to. Even if the Catholic Church is false and her worship is false and her clergy are false; does that make her God false? The Temple sacrifice was abrogated by Jesus’ but does that mean that for the next forty years the Jews no longer worshiped God since their sacrifice was vain? So no, the validity of the vow depends on whether the one Catholics address as “Father” is or isn’t God. One would have to be a bigger anti-Catholic than Jack Chick to hold that He isn’t.

A final point of clarification. We’ve all been playing a little loose with terminology. Technically Fr. Cutie is a secular priest and as such didn’t make vows but promised obedience to his bishop (and his successors).

James G

Bill (not IB) -

I think carl’s goal is to create a scenario which will allow him to say this:

If one presumes (like, say, the Reformers) that Rome is a false church that teaches a false gospel, and knows not God,

JamesG -

One suspects, based on the above statement, that carl thinks he has proved just that, i.e. that a Catholic doesn’t worship or makes vows to the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Well, you good protestants reading this: carl is one of yours, so I leave him to you.

For myself, the longer I think about it, the more I think my daddy was right: a man’s word is his bond. (a woman’s too, not to be too sexist.) If you can’t keep your promises, I’m not much interested in your religious ideology.

Here’s a Catholic’s perspective on the state of Catholicism in America. Non-sequential excerpts:

“Of course, just as Catholics finally arrived, they almost immediately set to fighting among themselves with a bitterness that would make even the most fractious Baptists blush.

American Catholics have struggled to balance their desire to assimilate into society with the fear of losing their faith in the nation’s melting pot. These new controversies show that, in the Catholic saga, assimilation is winning.

That is because American Catholics — and there are upwards of 65 million of us — are going their own way on many matters of faith and especially on issues ranging from priestly celibacy to political candidates, and there seems to be little the bishops can do about it.

A recent Pew survey showed that despite a generally greater “brand loyalty” than most faiths, Catholicism in America is bleeding out, to the point that nearly one in 10 Americans identifies as a former Catholic.

For every one convert, four Catholics are leaving the church — half of them to traditions like evangelicalism that they find more spiritually fulfilling.

Nothing draws media flies like a sex scandal, especially one involving a man of the cloth, but a funny thing happened on the way to Father Cutie’s disgrace: He did not slink away in shame but instead proclaimed, with Luther-like dignity, that he wasn’t worried what the hierarchy thought. “What worries me most is how God views me. The institution, the church, is something else.”

Father Cutie is now reportedly considering whether to marry his girlfriend, has said priestly celibacy should be optional and has joined the Episcopal Church. What’s more, 78 percent of Miami-area Catholics said they had a favorable impression of him, and 81 percent backed his call for a married priesthood, according to a Miami Herald poll.

That willingness of American Catholics to break ranks with such long-held tenets is evident in surveys on a number of issues, including church teachings regarding celibacy and birth control.”

Read it all at Sunday Forum: What kind of Catholics are we?

“When you receive an answer to your question (which you’ve been clamoring for) you basically say “I knew that would be the answer”, and then you proceed to deconstruct said answer.”

I didn’t ask the question without intent. I asked the question to create a dillema for my adversary. The consistent answer produces an inconsistent result. If this happens, something must be wrong in the logic chain. This discussion started with an assertion that a man is bound by a vow made to the RCC even in he repudiates that church. Why? Because he has given his word, and it does not matter that he no longer recognizes the spiritual authority behind his vow? All vows are equal, it is asserted.

If all vows are equal, then a man is also bound by vows to pagan religions after he becomes a Christian. But we are not so bound. Is there one RC on this board who would demand that a man keep a vow to raise his children in the Mormon faith after that man has become a Catholic? No, there isn’t. So what resolves the inconsistency. Why is a vow made by a RC priest binding, but a vow made by an ex-Mormon not binding? It is the assertion that Rome’s claims are objectively true.

But once that foundation is admitted, then you have admitted that all vows are not equal; that the spiritual force of a vow is dependent not on the fact that it was given, but on the authority behind the vow. And that was my whole point from the beginning.

If what Rome claims about itself is true, then the vow made by Martin Luther was binding on him. But Martin Luther concluded that Rome did not speak truth about itself. He rejected the authority of Rome as objectively false, just like Catholics reject the authority of Salt Lake City as objectively false. And he reacted to the vows he made just as an ex-Mormon Catholic would react to vows made as a Mormon. You can fault Luther for being wrong about Rome. But you can’t fault him for consistently acting on the conclusion that Rome is wrong.

carl

A “RIGHT IN THE WHEELHOUSE“.

“Is there one RC on this board who would demand that a man keep a vow to raise his children in the Mormon faith after that man has become a Catholic? No, there isn’t.”

Says who? *You* now speak for all the Catholic posters at MCJ? You’re setting up a theory and then making up factual-sounding statements to support it.

This discussion (which I now exit, as continuation has about as much use as an On/Off switch on a banana….) has prompted me to offer a new “truism”:

The use of “ad hominem” results in “ad nauseam”.

TUAD -

Quoting David Gibson on Catholicism is sort of like quoting JJ Bruno on Anglicanism. The whole article is an extended dismissal of Catholics who actually believe the Faith, shading facts when necessary, and overlooking the most obvious fact: most surveys of what American Catholics believe don’t control for actual practice – Mass attendance, Confession, service to the poor, and so on.

The most revealing quote:

This priority on unity is the principle that most American Catholics still live by,

To my ears, that’s another way of saying “Schism is worse than heresy”.

Bill (not IB)

Right. You run this question by your local priest, because this is the position you are maintaining.

“Father, I vowed to raise my children in the Mormon faith before I became Catholic. Am I still bound by that vow? Does God require me to teach them that Mormonism is true just because I once vowed to do so?”

See what he says. See if he tells you to send them to confirmation classes, or to those 5:00am Mormon instruction classes. Ask him if God will hold parents accountable for violating that vow, and doing exactly what parents are supposed to do.

People do not teach their children what they believe to be false and deny their children what they believe to be true simply because they once promised to do so in the context of a false religion. Nor should they. Nowhere does does God command that men deliberately teach falsehood about Him, and certainly not for the sake of a pagan vow. The whole point of conversion is to move from darkness to light. It breaks the slavery of exactly these kinds of bonds.

But if you wish to maintain this position, that’s fine by me.

carl

“An oath is different from a vow. The validity depends on the integrity of the oath taker because it is being made on his honor and not on some thing that will exact revenge if the oath is broken.”

I have used ‘oath’ and ‘vow’ interchangeably. But don’t hang an argument on the difference between the two. I could use the word you require to make the point. If you want to differentiate between oath and vow, that’s fine. I swore an oath of office when I was commissioned. And I guarantee you there were all sorts of things ready to exact punishment if I broke it. That oath did not hang on just my integrity.

“And the so-called “apologetic purpose” is diminished because it is coming from a person who is by definition dishonest”

It is dishonest to keep faith with a pagan religion, and not communicate its true nature to those who might be seduced by it? You would hide the truth for the sake of a lie? If a man comes to me and suggests that Mormonism is just a different version of Christianity with basically the same conception of God (and that happens much more frequently then you seem to realize), I will point him to those temple rituals so he can see exactly how Mormons view God. If I am an ex-Mormon, then the impact of reading these rituals will be enhanced, not diminished. And why should I want to withhold this information from him? It’s for his benefit to receive it.

“So no, the validity of the vow depends on whether the one Catholics address as “Father” is or isn’t God.”

Precisely. That has been my point all along. We agree. That’s what I have said in every post. Every. Single. Post.

carl

“Not so, Bishop Frade said Thursday afternoon. ‘That promise is not recognized by our church. If you can find it in the Bible that priests should be celibate, that will be corrected,’ Frade said.”

Oh the rich irony.

Person A leaves Church C and joins Church E. Church C says “Person A is still bound by the rules of Church C to which he agreed”. Church E says “Rubbish – we do not recognize that prior commitment within Church C”.

And invokes the Bible while they are at it. (Fair enough.)

This is the rhetoric when:

A = guy who likes women (fair enough I suppose)
C = Catholic Church
E = Episcopal Church

Ah… but when:

A = a congregation or bishop committed to traditional Anglicanism
C = *Episcopal Church*
E = *Anglican Church* (or a diocese/province committed to traditional Anglicanism)

Then the rhetoric changes dramatically.

“Bishop/Congregation A is still bound by the rules of Church C [here C = Episcopal] to which he/they agreed. See you in court. And we do not care what the Bible says on this matter”.

Wow.

[...] one more point. And I posted this over at Midwest Conservative Journal (which I no longer visit much – just interested in other issues right now): “Not so, Bishop [...]

One quick additional note.

I was quite impressed by the Miami Herald article. Well written. Captures a great deal in a moderate amount of print space.

FW KEN: “Quoting David Gibson on Catholicism is sort of like quoting JJ Bruno on Anglicanism. The whole article is an extended dismissal of Catholics who actually believe the Faith, shading facts when necessary, and overlooking the most obvious fact: most surveys of what American Catholics believe don’t control for actual practice – Mass attendance, Confession, service to the poor, and so on.”

#1. Could you please provide a survey or study that does incorporate the control factors that you think are needed?

#2. David Gibson implicitly answers your request for a more controlled study for “Mass attendance, Confession, service to the poor, etc…” with his observation:

“That is because American Catholics — and there are upwards of 65 million of us — are going their own way on many matters of faith and especially on issues ranging from priestly celibacy to political candidates, and there seems to be little the bishops can do about it.”

This point is particularly accentuated by the inability of the UCCSB and by the bishop over Fr. Jenkins, Notre Dame president, to biblically discipline Fr. Jenkins. Jenkins serves as a board member for an organization that promotes contraception and abortion (where legal). Not to mention that Jenkins gave Obama, a radical pro-abortionist, an honorary doctorate.

And speaking of vows, didn’t Jenkins make a vow to uphold Church teaching? And hasn’t he broken it?

1.) No, that’s my point. Gibson relies on surveys which aren’t reflective of Catholic practice. Actually, one recent survey did (I think the Pew Forum), and the results show that faithful Catholics are (surprise) more Faithful.

2.) I don’t see it. Gibson’s diatribe wants to include the whole ball of wax, as though we were a homogeneous body:

American Catholics — and there are upwards of 65 million of us — are going their own way

Obviously, that’s a meaningless statement but, useful for a libcat like Gibson to draw conclusions that support his ideology, but are invalid, being based on invalid data.

For the rest of it, I’m not sure what purpose is served by quoting Gibson: he dismissed the objections to Pres. Obama’s speaking at ND, as well as most anything about which the self-styled “orthodox” have concerns. He would also eschew any attempt at the sort of ecclesial discipline you seem to want:

the activists have also exploited — or worked with — bishops whose views match their own. And they can get away with it because the do-it-yourself trend in Catholicism is also infecting the hierarchy,

and then this:

A recent courageous editorial in the national Jesuit weekly America (which has at times felt the wrath of Rome) cited the dangers that the Notre Dame furor has revealed: “For today’s sectarians, it is not adherence to the church’s doctrine on the evil of abortion that counts for orthodoxy, but adherence to a particular political program … They scorn Augustine’s inclusive, forgiving, big-church Catholics … (and) threaten the unity of the Catholic Church in the United States.”

We’ll see what happened at ND. Last I heard, 8.5 million in pledges have been withdrawn. My suspicion is that ND will be knocked off the fense it has been straddling for awhile. It will either embrace a truly Catholic identiy, or will slide into the status of being a university “in the Catholic tradition” like Georgetown, Boston College, Seattle Univ. and others.

In any case, Gibson’s article is libcat spin and, again, I don’t see what point it serves quoted here.

Missed the end bit:

And speaking of vows, didn’t Jenkins make a vow to uphold Church teaching? And hasn’t he broken it?

Yes and yes.

Precisely. That has been my point all along. We agree. That’s what I have said in every post. Every. Single. Post.

Actually Carl, the point you have been trying to make in Every. Single. Post. was that a vow taken as a Catholic was wholly dependent on the Church’s authority for validity.

If all vows are equal, then a man is also bound by vows to pagan religions after he becomes a Christian. … Why is a vow made by a RC priest binding, but a vow made by an ex-Mormon not binding? It is the assertion that Rome’s claims are objectively true.

All your Mormon obfuscation is the definition of “apples and oranges” because you are comparing an oath or “vow” or promise made to a non-existent deity to one made to the One True God. A vow is a promise made to God; a promise made to a pagan deity is by definition not a vow so they are not equal.

The rightness of a man’s actions is not dependent on his belief but on the objective moral law of God. Therefore, if he makes a vow to God but then later breaks it because he no longer believes in God (or that God is God) then he is still committing a grave sin (sacrilege) even if in his own mind he is acting correctly. I wonder, do you grasp that or are you one of those who only believe in subjective reality?

This means that you or your hypothetical “Reformer” who does not think that Catholics worship the True God are still wrong because the One that we worship is God. I wonder, just what Catholic theological definition is it that you (or your hypothetical “Reformer”) reject? Is it the Trinity of Persons; the consubstantiality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; the eternal existence of all three Persons? Because I hate to break it to you but if you (or your hypothetical “Reformer”) think that Catholics do not worship God then it is you who is not a Christian because of gross theological error.

You can fault Luther for being wrong about Rome. But you can’t fault him for consistently acting on the conclusion that Rome is wrong.

Not so; if one is consistently wrong then they are still wrong even though they are acting consistently.

Since you are so hung up on consistency I will try to spell things out for you slowly so you can see the consistency of the Catholic position.

1) God is God and a vow made to Him is binding unless it is objectively evil
2) A person who makes a religious vow or a vow to raise their children Catholic is bound by that vow (unless released by a competent authority) even if no longer Catholic because:
a) the vow was made to God Himself and not to the Church
a) the vow itself is not objectively evil
=> If the person breaks their vow, even if it is because they think the Church is false, etc, they still commit a grave sin.

1) God is God and a Mormon or Buddhist or Hindu does not worship God (gross theological error and all)
2) A “vow” made to anyone other than God is not a vow
3) Worshipping a “god” other than God is objectively evil
=> A “vow” to raise the kids [blank] (non-Christian religion) is not binding because:
a) it is not a vow, and
b) to do so would be objectively evil

and finally for fullness’ sake:

1) A Christian worships God
2) A Protestant is in material schism and/or heresy
3) Heresy and schism are objectively evil
=> A vow made by a Protestant who becomes a Catholic to raise the kids Protestant is not binding because to do so would be to formally cooperate in an objective evil (schism/heresy).

Now you can claim that raising the kids Catholic would be objectively evil (you’d be wrong) but that is not the same thing as what you have been claiming with Every. Single. Post. which is: that Catholic vows are binding only on the Church’s authority. If you want to change your argument and say that the Catholic Church is objectively evil and anyone who leaves the “whore of Babylon” is doing a good thing; then just come out and say it. (That still doesn’t address religious vows since chastity, obedience and sometimes poverty are not objectively evil).

If Fr. Cutie had have been a religious then his leaving would be sacrilege because he would be breaking a vow. Since he was a secular priest it is wrong because he is breaking his ordination promises and committing an act of schism. If Fr. Cutie truly believes that the Church is wrong (and no evidence has been brought forth to show that) then he might not be guilty of formal schism though he would still be guilty of material schism. Even still, Fr. Cutie is guilty of breaking his ordination promises, especially since he could have been released from them.

James G

Me: “And speaking of vows, didn’t Jenkins make a vow to uphold Church teaching? And hasn’t he broken it?”

FW Ken: “Yes and yes.”

James G.: “[I]t is wrong because he is breaking his ordination promises and committing an act of schism.”

——–

Fr. Cutie clearly broke his vows (I don’t think there’s any dispute there. The dispute is whether he was *justified* in doing so). Although this doesn’t excuse or exonerate Fr. Cutie, I would just observe that there is a number of other Catholic clergy who have also broken their ordination vows too.

And so speaking of consistency, if Fr. Cutie is to be (rightly) excoriated for breaking his ordination vows, shouldn’t the other RCC clergy (including bishops and archbishops) also be excoriated too for breaking their ordination vows (assuming that it can be established that they broke them)?

Now to address your point here:

It is dishonest to keep faith with a pagan religion, and not communicate its true nature to those who might be seduced by it? You would hide the truth for the sake of a lie? If a man comes to me and suggests that Mormonism is just a different version of Christianity with basically the same conception of God (and that happens much more frequently then you seem to realize), I will point him to those temple rituals so he can see exactly how Mormons view God. If I am an ex-Mormon, then the impact of reading these rituals will be enhanced, not diminished. And why should I want to withhold this information from him? It’s for his benefit to receive it.

I have never put much stock in personal testimonies of any secret ritual. If the man who is telling the tale also says that he took an oath (the word you used at the time) not to tell it and what he promised to conceal is not objectively evil (such as a murder conspiracy) then he is admitting to being an untrustworthy man.

Is the Mormon faith false? – Yes. Are Mormons Christians? – No. Is it good to tell others about the errors of the Mormon faith? – Yes. Does that mean that it is okay to break oaths and promises? – Not necessarily.

There is more than adequate information freely available to show the errors of the Mormon faith. Many sites and ministries out there quote from official Mormon publications to show the inconsistencies and outright wackiness of the Mormon faith. Knowing the supposed intimate details of Temple activities is not necessary to prove the Mormon faith false. If the Temple rituals are innocuous and the person promised not to reveal them then in my opinion the person is dishonest if he brakes his promise. Maybe I’m wrong; maybe the rituals are objectively evil and to conceal them would be evil. However, I do not trust “tell-alls” nor the testimony of oath-breakers.

And FYI, I too have been frequently told that Mormons are Christians. I live in Arizona for God’s sake and some of my good friends are Mormon. I love them dearly but it is plain that their theology is not consistent with Christian theology. But in America, land of the “anything goes” where all the libs are even more non-Christian (and downright anti-Christian) than the Mormons; how is one to authoritatively say so?

James G

TUaD,

If you’ve got the firewood, I know a nice secluded spot in the desert…

James G

Pass.

I was just wondering why Fr. Cutie is being targeted more so than the other RCC clergy who’ve broken their ordination vows. It’s so …. inconsistent.

Everyone –

I had intended to exit this discussion, but I *must* continue, because to decline to do so would be to yield to Carl’s scheiss…….

Please note Carl’s response to my last comment – it didn’t address the primary question; it merely attempted to divert matters. I said that he was claiming to speak for all the RCC commenters herein; he referred me to “run this question by your local priest.” Um – since when does 1 + 2 = 27 (base 8)???

I really get pissed off at having someone trying to wriggle out of accounting for their own words like this. Please – until Carl can answer my question of how *he* gets to be the voice of RCC commenters here on MCJ, let him, and his words, sink into oblivion.

“TUaD,

James G”

I do recognize your (painful?) acknowledgment that there is a sizable number of Catholic clergy who’ve broken their ordination vows.

Thank goodness for the Donatist heresy, eh?

Actually, I’m not sure there is a vow to uphold the Catholic Faith, in so many words, although I would argue the spiritual duty to do so is there (i.e., the duty is there in “spirit”, if not technically).

This thread has wandered through far to many technicalities and legalistic, evading the substantive issues of integrity – I don’t mean a TEC special interest group – and fidelity. Fascinating.

FW Ken: “Actually, I’m not sure there is a vow to uphold the Catholic Faith, in so many words, although I would argue the spiritual duty to do so is there (i.e., the duty is there in “spirit”, if not technically).”

If so, then that’s (tah-dum… drum roll) Fr. Cutie’s out! I.e., there’s no formal (technical) vow uttered by clergy to uphold the Catholic faith!!?!!

Full. Circle. Indeed.

FW Ken: “Gibson relies on surveys which aren’t reflective of Catholic practice. Actually, one recent survey did (I think the Pew Forum)”

Funny. Gibson does cite the Pew Forum which you recommended: “A recent Pew survey showed that despite a generally greater “brand loyalty” than most faiths, Catholicism in America is bleeding out, to the point that nearly one in 10 Americans identifies as a former Catholic.

For every one convert, four Catholics are leaving the church — half of them to traditions like evangelicalism that they find more spiritually fulfilling.”

I would argue the spiritual duty to do so is there

There is an “out” in what part of that?

Buy, hey, if you like libcats, may I recommend a subscription to the National Catholic Reporter.

For every one convert, four Catholics are leaving the church — half of them to traditions like evangelicalism that they find more spiritually fulfilling.”</i.

I can’t help but wonder how many just wanted validation for their divorces? But I truly wish them welll. May the honest seekers among them find grace in their search.

FW Ken: “hey, if you like libcats, may I recommend a subscription to the National Catholic Reporter.”

Not me. As I wrote way up earlier on this thread:

“I hope Conservative Catholics fight tooth and nail against Liberal Catholics like Rahner and Kung and their disciples.

If the Vatican/Magisterium wants to drink of Higher Criticism as espoused through liberal Catholics like Kung and Rahner, well, what can you do.

Have at it.”

Eg.

“Even Karl Rahner concedes in a Spiegel interview on 28 February 1972: ‘If I hypothetically, unreally hypothetically, imagine that I had read out the 1870 definition of the First Vatican Council to Jesus in his lifetime, in his empirical human consciousness he would probably have been amazed and not understood any of it.’ The only amazing thing is that we contemporaries with our ‘empirical human consciousness’ should understand something that Jesus the Christ, to whom the whole Christian tradition appeals, would not have ‘understood anything of’,”H. Küng, Disputed Truth: Memoirs II (Continuum 2008), p. 173.”

“It is not the church of the New Treatment that primarily interests Joseph Ratzinger but always the ‘church of the fathers’ (of course without mothers). As is abundantly clear in his Jesus of Nazareth (2007), his theological concern is not concentrated on the Jesus of history, in light of whom the later dogmas of the church are to be interpreted for our time, but on the Christ of the Hellenistic councils, whom he reads everywhere into the New Testament Writings,” H. Küng, Disputed Truth: Memoirs II (Continuum 2008), p. 15.”

“This is the early church as he [Ratzinger] understands it. He doesn’t see Jesus of Nazareth as his disciples and the first Christian community saw him but as he was defined dogmatically by the Hellenistic councils of the fourth/fifth centuries, which in fact split Christianity more than they united it. The Jesus of history and the undogmatic Jewish Christianity of the beginning hardly interest him. For Ratzinger, the early church is the church of the church fathers, more precisely of the Latin church fathers rather than the Greek, and not of those before the Council of Nicaea in 325…” ibid. p. 131.”

Liberal Catholics… Celebrate them. They’re all yours.

Carl: “Is there one RC on this board who would demand that a man keep a vow to raise his children in the Mormon faith after that man has become a Catholic? No, there isn’t.”

Bill (not IB): “Says who? *You* now speak for all the Catholic posters at MCJ? You’re setting up a theory and then making up factual-sounding statements to support it.”

FW Ken: “I’m not sure the promise to raise one’s children Catholic is even required anymore. If it is, it would be easily dispensed.”

Rather interesting to observe all this.