Catholicism

Because they chose to dedicate their lives to something else? Being a nun is much much different from being a priest-there are also religious orders for men that are like convents.

I'm all for married clergy, and women priests, but I do think that celibate orders should be open to people who wish to enter them.

Besides, most of the nuns I knew were hella cool.

 

Because they chose to dedicate their lives to something else? Being a nun is much much different from being a priest-there are also religious orders for men that are like convents.

I really think the whole idea of a nun is stupid anyway. In my opinion, the Catholic Church has too many rules, which breeds too much ignorance.

 

So don't join a convent. Really, it's not like anyone is forced to be a nun-it's a rare calling.

 

Just because a church has lots of rules doesn't mean that all of its people are ignorant. I'd rather be in my tradition heavy, many rules church than join the new "flavor of the month" church that changes ever year. Id rather be 800 years behind and not looking to change than 3 years behind constantly trying to catch up.

 

The Church doesn't force you to follow any "rules".

The Church does its best to help you live a holy life. That is the whole purpose of the Sacraments. A covenant has been sworn between you and YHWH. Christ's love for His Church mirrors the love between a husband and wife.

I don't understand why everyone enjoys bashing Christians who are just trying to live moral lives. Christ's message was one of love and peace. Man is fallible. Throughout history, men have slaughtered many people in the name of God. That doesn't mean God is pleased with it.

Also, to say that priests and nuns shouldn't have to live celibant lives is a personal insult to them. They have chosen to give their sexuality to God, spiritually "marrying" Him. You are implying that they aren't "strong enough".

 

Rules are the expression of beliefs. If one were to believe something but act against it, this would be a dangerous character trait and very similar if not identical to willing a known evil.

This relationship between beliefs and rules is accessible in liturgy, where each action and each word is defined by the rubrics. These rubrics do not exist as an end in themselves but to properly represent Catholic beliefs.

The priest faces the altar, because he is facing ad orientam, eastward, looking towards Christ.

At the concecration the sanctuary bells are tolled three times and the Priest genuflects, these are signs which manifest the Catholic belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

And so with nuns and priests it is the same, the rules should be an expression of belief. They are not celibate for celibacy's sake, but because of their relationship with God.

In suggesting that the Church has too many rules, do you also suggest that the Church has too many beliefs? And if so, why should there be a numerical limit to beliefs?

 

Well spoken.

I'll have to keep that in mind.

 

If one were two believe

I've officially lost my mind.

 

Rejoiiiice and be glad!

 

If I may ask, what exactly is the point of your post?

 

Why can't they devote themselve to prayer and a spouse?

Being Catholic, I feel I should respond.

The whole point to taking vows of chastity and not getting married is to fully devote yourself to the Lord. If a nun/priest/monk has a spouse, then their devotion is not only for the Lord, but for that spouse and family. I have a cousin who just took vows. She told me that all that was in her life was the Lord. These people who take vows must do it without reservation. If they feel like they would one day like to marry, they are discouraged from taking vows.

 

Why can't they devote their lives to prayer and their spouse?

I'm probably echoing the above post, but the point is that they're dedicating their lives to God, not to God and their spouse. Paul discusses this in the New Testament, saying that it is better that a person remain unmarried, so that they can devote their entire time to God, than for it is for that person to marry, if that person can remain chaste. If that person cannot remain chaste, they are encouraged to marry, so that they would not sin. Obviously marriage is a wonderful thing, but taking vows of chastity (and I realise that I'm probably mixing those terms up) is acknowledging that something bigger and better exists than simple human desires. By doing this, a person is able to devote all of their time and effort into pleasing God without having to set aside time for a spouse.

And so with nuns and priests it is the same, the rules should be an expression of belief. They are not celibate for celibacy's sake, but because of their relationship with God.

Well said.

 

Less and less priests these days. That's good. I'd rather see married Ministers as the upholders of morality.

 

The ones who can get married are not ministers, but Deacons

 

Since there are *cough* certain US Senators that have a rather confused notion of Catholic history, I thought it might be a good idea to use this thread to dispel certain myths about Catholicism's past that continue to persist today. Here's a couple examples:

Pope Boniface VIII banned the practice of cadaver dissection in the 1200s- No such ban has ever occurred. This seems to be from a misunderstanding of the papal bull "De Sepulturis" which banned he boiling of bodies of soldiers who died the Holy Land in order to separate the bones from their bodies and transport them back to Europe.

Christopher Columbus was told that he would fall off the edge of the world were he to sail west across the Atlantic- No one in their right mind believed the world was flat in 1492. This myth originates in a story by Washington Irving called The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus.

Anyone have other myths about Catholic history and refutations of them?

 

Why can't they devote themselve to prayer and a spouse?

Darth Facetious gave a very good answer to this. Plus, a nun's spiritual spouse is Jesus Christ.

I have three friends who are nuns, and five who want to become nuns. Might I mention that they are the happiest and most contented people I know?

 

Less and less priests in the world....

Speaking of celibacy and devoting one's life to God, wouldn't it make more sense to let celibate women become priests before allowing priests to marry?

I just don't get it.

 

Well, the decline in vocations seems to be largely an American and European phenomenon. The Church seems to be inclined to fill the gaps with what a lot of commentators are calling "reverse missionary" work: priests from Africa, Asia, and South America being posted to parishes in the US and Europe.

 

That has apparently happened at my own parish, where a priest from Africa was installed to take the place of several priests who left.

I wouldn't really know personally, as i haven't attended mass in about a year.

 

married priests and women priests often get grouped together, but they are really categorically different.

Priestly celibacy is a matter of discipline, so it can be changed at any time. In fact, it's not even universially held. Only Latin Rite Catholic priests are required to be celibate, and even then there are exceptions. Eastern Rite Catholic priests can be married. So are certain converts (Anglican ministers becoming Catholic priests are sometimes given a dispensation). One can argue that allowing priests to be married would help alleviate the priest shortage, but the data shows otherwise, as Anglican, Eastern Rite, and Orthodox are all having shortages of priests as well. And even if the rule was changed, if someone was unwilling to give up married life back when it was compulsory, how strong is his vocation to the priesthood to begin with?

A male-only priesthood, on the other hand, is a matter of doctrine, not discipline. It's not that women priests are not allowed, but that there can be no such thing as a woman priest. It is part of the Apostolic Tradition which can't be changed by anyone, not even the pope if he so desired. John Paul II wrote on the subject in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and then-Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the CDF responded to queries that this is meant to be taken as infallible by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.

 

Hope no one minds a new n00b upping this.

I have a rather trivial question: Is it 'wrong' or disrespectful in any way to wear the rosay around your neck ? not for decorative purposes, but just because? I've seen quite a few people do that, and I was just wondering if that is 'allowed'.

I noticed this tends to happen especially when the rosary has some emotional value attached; for example, a rosary given by the Pope.

 

The link probably answers the question better than I could: http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/01/wearing_rosarie.html

 

Thank you for the link Darth_Overlord.

 

I'm an evangelical atheist but i'm not going to start argument here. I was just wondering, i have a question for any Catholics, or in fact any Christians at all, and it ties into the rosary discussion.

What is your opinion of the induction of the crucifix as a status symbol on jewelry? As in many non-religious people wear them in a hypocritical way, and isn't the pure use of it as jewelry hypocritical even for a religious person?

 

There was an article by an organization with ties to the Vatican that said very much the same thing. I don't mind if it is particularly ornate, but it should be a holy reminder of faith for the person wearing it, not just a piece of jewelry.