₦airaland Forum

Your question was a deflection - that was my point in trying to wake you up. Obviously you didn't see it

No it is not a deflection, it is entirely a case of u not being able to answer bcus u know that your answer will only give proof to my assertions.

You speak of institutional vow and that it is wrong bcus it doesn't leave room for 'free-will' so I brought an example of an institutional vow of marriage and asked you if a married man has the free will AFTER taking a vow to sleep with another woman. You still haven't answered me yet.
I won't allow you to turn this into a 'where did I imply this?' I am asking you a question, I expect an answer.

If u will not be respectful enough to answer then let me know, and I will quit responding to you.
I also can exercise my free will to stop posting.

Was that even remotely suggested in any replies of mine so far? Why this desperado suddenly showing up in your replies?

I see you're still trying to dodge it. Nice try, answer the question.

The institutional vow of celibacy does not accentuate the talk of 'free will' - that is the point.

Then there is no vow. You cannot take a vow to be celibate only to want free will to not follow the vow and enjoy the priviledges that come from u taking that vow. It is entirely the case of having the cake and eating it too. It makes no sense.

On what planet does it make sense that a person enters into a contract only to say that they won't fulfill their end of the contract but still want the priviledge?

What is the correlation between a political vow of office and a Catholic institutional vow of celibacy? At least no one is asking the President to "step down" and suffer a failed marriage as a result of his political vow, nor yet is anyone asking the President to assume a life of celibacy because of a political oath of office. This whole thing just does not add up to your account

Because both are Offices that take vows. The vows being different does not make them unrelatable. Point is vows are made in both Offices. If u will not tolerate the President breaking his vow and enjoying the benefits of the Office of President, why would u tolerate a Priest breaking his vow and still enjoying the benefits of the Office of the Priest?

What you're thinking is that married priests enjoy the same priviledges as unmarried priests, they do not.

This is becoming very, very interesting. Are you not the same person that argued that priests are priests for life even though they go to hell? So what is this talk about chossing to "step down" - step down from what and become what: non-priests?

They no longer have the duties of the Priests, unless in dire circumstances, but as I said it is a mark on their soul.

Your argument is controverted. Period. You're trying to maintain a position of 'free will' in an institutional vow and that is why your conclusions are arbitrary. If a man (p.A) chooses to be a 'priest', observes that others (p.B,C,D, etc) are still 'priests' even though they are married, and then he (p.A) wants to get married and enjoy the same standing as others (p.B,C,D, etc), what is this talk about "choosing to step down" while the others (p.B,C,D, etc) continue to enjoy the 'priesthood' without bothering about any issues of 'stepping down'?

Aha but he doesn't enjoy the same standing. Maybe one should've studied the subject on hand before diving into it?

Please. This is not about "forcing" this and that - and if that even comes into the picture, I have made my point earlier that nothing should be IMPOSED upon any man. The talk of 'celibacy' is antithetical to 'free will' in so far as one who becomes a priest is forbidden from getting married if he afterwards feels the need to. Others who are already married before they become 'priests' continue to enjoy married life - how does that square off for priests who also want a family life while carrying on their work as 'priests' at par with those others who are married?

That is why it is not IMPOSED on any man. If you know that taking road A leads to place B and you do not want to go to place B, then don't follow road A. We can apply it to all in life, bcus we make choices, that is what our free-will affords us, making choices. Our choices have consequences, if we do not want said consequence then we need not to make said choice. Plain and simple. If u do not want a baby, then don't have sex. If u do not want to get burned then don't put your hand in the fire.

Married Priests and Unmarried Priests have different roles and benefits. The Church does not take care of the Married Priest as it does the unmarried Priest. Married Priests have to work to fend for their wives and families, unmarried Priests don't. Married Priests are stuck in one place to serve the faithful, unmarried Priests aren't. Unmarried Priests can become Bishops, Married Priests cannot. See why I said you should learn about the Priesthood first? There's so much more you do not know.

The Bible also recognizes that local churches are to take care of those who minister to them (1 Tim. 5:17-18).

The whole argument (in your case) for 'free will' is a non-starter as far as institutional vows are concerned

According to you it is a non-starter in any situation. Free-will is still limited my dear.

I already explained - with lucid examples so that no one is left wondering what I was stating.

no really u didn't. u left me scratching my head wandering what ur talking about.

[quote][/quote]

Lol, I think you're arguing against your own ideas. You had blandly stated earlier that "there is such a thing as free will in the Church", and now you are the same person who is again arguing that "of course not" there is NO free will in this regard?

Because the free will is exercised upon entering the Priesthood. That is the reason I asked the question (that I haven't seen u actually address)
That if a man takes a marital vow, should he have the free will of sleeping with another woman?

This is not a matter of a man eating his cake and having it - that is just begging the question. The Catholic church imposed celiebacy on priesthood and should be responsible for the failure of that system

1. The Catholic Church did not impose a thing on anyone.
2. The celibacy system isn't a failure.
3. If celibacy is the reason for the Priests to engage in sexual acts, then why is it that married pastors are actually far worse. Or better yet, why is it, that married people are having affairs or is the institution of marriage a failure too?

One more thing, why are you comparing being an apostle to being a father/pope

Because they are the direct successors of the apostles, whether u wish to acknowledge it or not, it is the truth. It is the only view that can be proven. They carry on the work of the apostles.

As a christian, i would consider Christ's instructions and guidance first before any of his apostle and Jesus never stated that those who should be his apostle should not get married and Paul himself never said an apostle should not also get married

So u don't think the Bible is equal in all parts?
That is why the matter of celibacy isn't a of doctrine, it is purely custom, and because it has been so.
There is a difference between Tradition and tradition.

It still doesn't make sense, just because it's been so does not mean it should be so, why would a married person be allowed to become a priest but an unmarried priest cannot be allowed to get married, it clearly doesn't make sense.

Because the duties of a married Priest and an unmarried Priests are different. Hence you have to learn about the Catholic Priesthood before you start having such a conversation.

If peter was married, that does not mean he never had intimacy with his wife, being thrown into jail did not stop him from having intimacy with his wife after being released, he didn't spend all the rest of his life in jail after becoming an apostle, being an apostle does not mean you can't get married.

I understand, it is possible, but it is only possible if Peter was arrested in his home town. He wasn't. The places he was arrested was no where close to home. Remember the apostles dispersed, and the Apostle that stayed close to home was James in Jerusalem. So the thing is, as Peter was always on the run was it physically possible for him to carry his wife about with him. If he did, where did his wife stay while he was in jail bcus she isn't in jail with him. SHe's in a foreign land, where her husband is a wanted man, what woman would stay there?

ok u guys have to forgive me for writing in short posts like this. I don't know what it is, but posting on nairaland is quite difficult for me. the page sort of jumps as i type

. . . in other words, their failed marriages should be blamed on the vow of celibacy?

Uh no their failed marriages could be blamed on them breaking a vow with God. That's the reason why that statement talked about breaking a vow made with God, and nothing to do with celibacy. A vow, any vow that is made with God is what I'm talking about. Please read my statements well.

Should that not be the more reason why a priest who gets married is still a priest and should suffer no restrictions for getting married after becoming a priest?

I see you need to learn about the Priesthood. I don't have all the time in the world to teach you. A priest being a priest doesn't mean he can actually take on the duties of a priest. He can be stripped of his duties as a Priest, but just with baptism you cannot undo the mark that is done on the soul one cannot undo the mark that is done on the soul of the man that is ordained. Let me put it like this. You see those Priests who were accused of sexual molestation that were actually guilty, a lot of them were not allowed to fulfill their priestly duties. They are not allowed to celebrate Mass, they are not allowed to head a Parish, they are not allowed to work with the Parishioners, they are not allowed to work with Parishioners children, they could only work in an office as a librarian or something where they have no contact with people. But their title as Priest can never be taken away from them. It is on their soul forever, hence my statement that there are Priests in hell. One Bishop who shuffled Priests in his diocese was punished by the Pope (this is the only case I can remember right now), instead of having a diocese, he gives tours in Rome, but his title as Bishop can never be taken away. But that doesn't mean he is allowed to fulfill the role of a Bishp. Hope that helps u to better understand.

I'm sorry I do not 'prove' your point in any way. Please go back and re-read my comments following what you had stated. Celibacy is not the reason for failed marriages, and you had intoned that married priests had suffered failed marriages because of some 'vow' of celiebacy - as if the vow of celibacy is responsible for failed or successful marriages. Sorry, my comments and yours are worlds apart

Who said celibacy is the reason for failed marriages?
Are you clearly reading what I wrote? I think not.
No I didn't intone that they had suffered failed marriages, I wondered why it is among those who got married that majority of them had failed marriages, I actually intoned about them failing their marriages due to their breaking of their vow to God not that they were celibate, go back and read please. Someone seems to have selective reading eh.

An institutional vow of celibacy in the Catholic church cannot be blamed on any man's wife or the institution of marriage. Thus, the Catholic church or any other denomination that has imposed such institutional vows upon men should take responsibility for their own failure instead of looking for someone else to blame.

What are you talking about? Who is blaming a wife for celibacy? Do you even know how to read?

Was that what I stated or argued? Where?

I asked you a question, usually that comes with an answer.

The apostles did not teach any such thing - the Bible is there and we all can read it for ourselves. It is a clear sign of double standards to maintain the above.

I didn't realise that EVERYTHING that the Apostles did was written in the Bible. What does the Bible say about that actually?

Please where did you get that from? That is pure conjecture that is indefensible. There is no record of Peter being celibate.

I think I already posted this, Matthew 19
27 Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? 28 And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.

The Apostles left EVERYTHING to follow Christ.

Is that the 'reason' for your conjecture about an assumed celibacy for Peter? That argument holds no substance.

Really I didn't realise his wife was with him the times he was being thrown in and out of jail and then later on beheaded? Proof of your stance that he was with his wife please?

What that means is not about being forced into any priesthood; rather, I argue that under the vow of celibacy, there is no such thing as "free will" to get married UNDER THAT VOW. If there were any such talk of "free will" under such institutional vows, then no one would be making statements like "[a] married man can become a Priest, but a Priest cannot marry" - and there would be no such obstacles in this same "free will" such that any popes of the Catholic church should have had to resign in order to pursue marriage

Just as a married man who takes a vow does not have the free will to sleep with other women. This is how a vow works. The free will comes into play before the vow not after it. If u do not want to hold to that vow, then break it. It is the same thing with a contract. When u enter into a contract, u live up to your side of the bargain, there is no such thing as a free will AFTER you enter the contract, while the contract still stands. but to get out of that, one has to break the contract, and in that, there is free will.

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever in the face of the facts on ground, which again makes the talk of 'free will' meaningless

Please explain HOW it becomes meaningless, and show me any such vow on this earth, that allows u free will to do opposite of the vow.

It is in this instance the talk about 'free will' becomes meaningless

How does it become meaningless?

Is one forced to become a Priest in the first place? Does the person not know that after one becomes a Priest they do not have the option of getting married?
Their free will is exercised when they choose to become a Priest, and it is exercised when they choose to step down from their Office if they cannot fulfill the duty.
I wonder how one would apply it to the President of Nigeria. Does the President not take a vow to? Isn't he expected to live up to that vow? Should we now allow the free will of the President to take place when he doesn't want to fulfill the vow he took? If he no longer wishes to go to Aso Rock, to do anything for the people or to take on the duties of the President, should he not step down? Or should he stay in Office and continue to receive the benefits of the Office of President while not fulfilling his vow?
In case u do not know, the Priest has an Office. It is called the Office of the Priest. So while he is in that Office he has to follow the rules. This is how life works, there are rules to live by.
Apply your logic to a married man. He takes a vow, should his wife allow him his rights as a married man, if he fails to live up to the vow he took to be faithful to her?

I would rather say that God Himself transform the lives of His people in a way that no 'vows' are able to do.

No one claims otherwise. Infact you only prove my point, that it is not celibacy that causes these men to behave the way they do. It is entirely their character and their unwillingness to allow God to transform them.

If a married man takes a vow to God and his wife, and is unable to keep that vow, would u credit his inability to keep that vow to his wife to the institution of marriage, and all together call for the scrapping of marital vows?
would u suggest that he take on another wife bcus he cannot control his own lust?

It is not the vow that causes him to want another woman, it is his own sinfulness that causes it.

Besides, in other cases, a few of these 'married priests' are not too happy with the inaccurate designation of 'ex-priests', for they are still priests but only 'ex-clerics'

These designations are only from non-catholics and ill-informed Catholics. The Church does not recognise one as an 'ex-priest.' A priest is a priest forever, even if he dies and goes to hell.

There is no such thing as 'free will' in a matter of institutional vows. One cannot take an institutional vow of celibacy and then exercise a 'free will' of getting married while under that vow and then retaining the privileges of the same institutional vow(s).

Ofcourse not, just like a man doesn't have the free will to take a marital vow with another woman when he already has taken a marital vow with one. Such is the institution of marriage in Christianity. Such a person wants to have their cake and eat it too, impossible. The Church takes care of EVERYTHING for the Priest, right from toothbrush to retirement, if a Priest wants a wife, he needs to take up the responsibility of a job to care for his wife.

They have the free will to step down. I think in yorubaland what they call the person that does what you state is Oleoshi.

That does not even begin to make any sense. Marriages fail not because of any intitutional vows of celibacy. Nada. Zilch. In the case of married priests, how many of them could claim that the successes of their marriages are because of such institutional vows of celibacy

You completely miss the point of my statement.

Sorry to ask, but does this make sense to you? i mean the bolded parts?

Is the english language too difficult for you?

What part of a married man can become a priest, but a priest cannot become married do u not understand?

Ok let me explain. It means that if a man is married before he considers the priesthood, he can become a priest. But if he is already a priest before he is married, he cannot get married. It has been that way since the time of the Apostles.
Peter was married BEFORE becoming a Priest. But amazingly after becoming a Priest, he was celibate. Clearly his wife wasn't being thrown into jail with him, and wasn't moving about the world founding local churches as he was.

Devonian, be careful not to let hatred cloud your judgment or your ignorance to show.

3. The Pope is also VERY FALLIBLE in this matter, news emerging from Germany shows he allegedly failed to manage Priests’ sexual misconduct which took place within his jurisdiction whilst he was Cardinal Ratzinger in Germany (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1972306,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-full-world-related )

This has been proven to be false.
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=101036

lol@ wikipedia being your source on who was sexually active and not.
maybe i should go and post something there about you and tout it as truth?

4. It’s really incredible! RCC Priest should be allowed to marry. As someone has rightly pointed out on this thread, celibacy isn’t dogma or scripture. It’s about RCC Canon which is man-made. Man should therefore change it, considering some of them are already married with children. After all, Peter, whom RCC considers as the First Pope was married. This is my 2 pence worth contribution.

Peter was married BEFORE Christ, BEFORE he became a Priest, nothing about him not being being celibate AFTER he became a Priest. Maybe you should actually learn about the Requirements for Catholic Priesthood first? But then again, truth isn't something you might like is it?

Amazing how u happened to skip the posts that states that Priests are not forced into the priesthood, neither are they required to be unmarried.

And still even if they were required to be unmarried. Celibacy is not the problem. Marriage is not the solution. If it was, u wouldn't have married pastors boinking their parishioners, but they do. Sexual harrassment and molestation of children are very much prevalent in non-catholic churches. but no one gives them any attention. No one fights for those victims. you have thousands of victims who suffer at the hands of pastors, but no one is fighting for them.

@ Krayola

What happened to the other topic on abortion? I came back looking for it, and can't find it.

You have to forgive me for not replying soonest to you.
Between my family, school work, and planning a wedding, I am wiped out. If u can help me find it so that I can reply, I will greatly appreciate it.

If you are able to engage in an act, be equally able to handle the consequences. Such is life. for every action there is a reaction.
If u know that when u put ur hand in the fire, u will be burned, do not do it.

if u know that having sex leads to children, and ur not ready for children, it is rather as simple as not having sex.

Do not do things u know u can't handle the consequences on

As to the poster. It is rather foolish to think that pro-lifers are not the ones running orphanages, or adoption clinics and such places.

I am pro-life, I will have my own children (by the grace of God) and adopt, this is a decision my fiance and I made.

I know lots of pro-lifers who adopt. Not just that, they also work in orphanages and give financially to the orphanages.

Let me put it like this. Pro-lifers are the reason the orphans see food and water. How can u expect a person who does not see the child in the womb as a human to even dare see the ones outside as human?
They don't. Your position should be the other way around. It is the pro-choicers that are not concerned about humans.

ukotmi:
. I was born and raised a catholic. My dad was the parish chairman for over a decade. Before then, he was a well known choir master.
So I knew catholic priests at very close range. They should be allowed to marry. Some of them keep multiple girl friends. If I am challenged, I will mention priests from the missionary society of st Paul(MSP) and their babes. One of them got married recently and joined Anglican Church as a priest.

It's quite easy to spot a liar. So bcus u can mention a group it means that your story on that group is true? Rubbish. Provide proof that this is true.
I'm also very familiar with the MSSP (get it right next time) and I don't know those that have girlfriends.

what i am suggesting the catholic church do is to have an option whereby a priest who can't remain celibate should be allowed to marry or betterstill denounce his priesthood

there is such a thing as free will in the Church. There are Priests that have stepped down from their roles as Priests, amazingly when they do get married, their marriages fail. Maybe one should reconsider breaking a vow made with God?

Another thing people do not know.

THERE ARE MARRIED PRIESTS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

A married man can become a Priest, but a Priest cannot marry. It is the same with the Orthodox Church and it is how it's been since the time of the Apostles.

I just wish people will actually learn about these things before they speak on it.

michelin89:
You won't deny your worship of eggs and spermatozoas is extreme, will you?

Yes I find it funny people like you think condoms and any other form of contraceptive are a threat to possible human lives.

That's bcus you don't know the consequences of them in our society.

I stated earlier that Planned Parenthood reported that 54% of the women who come in for an abortion were on contraceptives. [size=14pt]54%[/size]. If abortion is taking lives, and ppl who use contraceptives expect them to work, but they really don't, and so to take care of their 'problem' they make up rights for themselves.

eldee:
What sociologists?? The ones that believe that have been gone since the 1960s.

This is 2010, I give y'all five years to catch up with the rest of the world.

You seem to think that the world is always right. What is happening now isn't new, do some research and see history. The world ends up backstepping when it realises it mistakes.

This is the cycle. New age ideologies are self-destructive, have always been and will always be.

They have no basis and are very illogical

When taken in a debate, logic escapes.

the only sociologists that see family life as something negative are radical feminists who think women being women is a bad thing, and marxists. We've already seen how destructive marxism is, and well radical feminists make no sense.

michelin89:
How have I attacked your person?

Here:

There are extremists in every ideal.

But I do find it funny to know we still have people like you!

I've made statements and as I do, I back it up.
You made a statement I asked you to back it up, instead of doing so you proceeded to tell me how I am. See that you didn't provide any facts to back up your claim, all you did was spout ideologies and talk about me.

ah Ohsisi that's the video

there are testimonies abortion clinic directors who came out and said what they plan is. they switched sides. one of them actually spoke of her experience and what changed her mind.

She was watching an abortion take place and didn't think anything of it. Until she saw the babe move away from the saline solution, the baby kept moving and made movements as it was feeling pain. She changed her mind quickly.

michelin89:
No you don't and it doesn't.

But I do find it funny to know we still have people like you!

There are more like me, and even more increasing, I find it funny that there are people like you too. Like really your ideology escapes logic.
Notice how you've done nothing but attack my person? That's the only life line you have. Sad shame.

michelin89:
There are extremists in every ideal.

You call it extremists, I call it truth, either way I have a stronger stance than you do. And my stance makes sense.

Krayola:
@Lady when I say morally human (moral consideration), I mean entitled to all the rights a human person is, and not that an immoral person is not human.

I'll respond to your posts later cause I'm not home now and I can't hijack my friend's laptop for too long. 

In order for one to be entitled to the rights of a human person, we first need to determine if one is actually human, you were giving me the impression that it is the moral consideration of a human that determines the entitlements to all the rights of a human person.

If you're telling me that moral consideration means entitled to all the rights a human person is, then you're basically saying that 'entitled to all the rights a human person is' determines the entitlements to all the rights of a human person.

See how that doesn't make sense?

I'm under the impression that we're trying to determine what makes a human being

ok what's up with the editing? are we toddlers or adults?

The problem today is that people don't realise that God is in the midst when sex takes place. God is everywhere and we cannot keep him out. When couples engage in sex, the man and woman and God in a way 'commune' together. The man brings his sperm, the woman her egg, and God the soul of the person that results from that sexual act.

Most people tell God to be with them everywhere, but please stay out of their bedroom.

Sex is meant to bind a couple together, in what way does satisfying yourself bind you to your spouse? It becomes selfish and only about pleasure of one's self. A man or woman who seeks their own gratification during sex is selfish and unwilling to give his or herself to their spouse. If that is your goal in sex, then you have no love for your spouse and God, but only love for yourself.

@ Kgdavid

please ignore those that try to make it seem as if discussing sex is a taboo or discussing it among the youth is. I applaud your pastor for actually tackling the issue.

Sex is a gift from God, it is not evil, it isn't a taboo. It is beautiful, it is pleasurable, it is sacred, and from it we get new life.

But as with all gifts given to us by God, we humans with our fallen nature can abuse it.

Ways of abusing sex are:

Fornication
Adultery
Masturbation
Pornography
Homosexual sex

Sex is not meant to be selfish, or self-gratification. It is a giving of oneself to another, it is a giving of one's self to one's spouse.

first of all I never asked a question, so I don't know what you're talking about.

second if I did, you missed the mark of my question. I think what you did was confuse your thoughts for my thoughts?