Gosh, it doesn’t look like the Catholic Bishops consulted the infamous 1994 TEC HOB “Teaching Document” on Human Sexuality. Can you even imagine the TEC HOB producing such a pastoral letter?
Re # 2
anonymousepiscopalian,
It seems to me that someone’s marital status is not by itself the criteria on which one should judge a document like this. One needs to judge it on the basis of its conformity to Scripture, the OEcumenical Councils, Apostolic Tradition and the Consensus Patri. Further it needs to be noted that married bishops is a departure from a very ancient discipline accepted throughout the church catholic (both East and West) and ratified by the canons of the Church.
Re: #3
I agree that marital status is no way to judge this document. I must say that staking your claim in the small “t” tradition (of our brothers in the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church) of celibate bishops is scripturally and big “T” tradition difficult…1 Timothy 3 clearly states that bishops (episkopos) should be “a one woman man” and Apostolic Constitutions Book 2 section 1 reaffirms the statement made by scripture. Due to a problem with nepotism the bishop of Rome decided that celibacy would be better for all those who serve God in his church. Many in the Orthodox and Catholic communities believe that the another Church council should take place to overturn the earlier (might I add untraditional and scripturally unsound) ruling…this is due to a lack of qualified candidates for bishop and priests.
#5 — I can’t speak for the Orthodox side (re bishops), but it is absolutely clear that, in the RCC, the requirement of priestly celibacy is a matter of discipline, and not of doctrine. Rome has allowed, and continues to allow, exceptions to that discipline (as, for example, in the Eastern Rite churches, and in receiving certain former Anglican priests). In the Orthodox churches, married men may become priests, but priests may not marry. I believe that the requirement of celibacy for bishops may be more of a function of the fact that bishops are drawn from the ranks of monastics, but I’m sure that there are others who contribute to this board who are far more knowledgable than me on that topic.
#2, of course, like so many in our post-modern era, assumes that experience trumps any other basis for knowledge or for teaching authority. This, of course, is wrong (as other posts above have pointed out), and, even more, is foolish. An oncologist is not required to have had cancer in order to explain how cancer develops in the body, or how to treat it. An economist is not required to have been unemployed to offer opinions about the causes of widespread unemployment and potential remedies. If #2’s position had any validity, we would expect bishops in both the RCC and ECUSA to refrain from commenting on issues of war and peace (very few have had experience in the military or diplomatic corps). And, perhaps, under #2’s theory, we could expect ECUSA’s current PB to refrain from comment on the Millenium Development Goals, or other issues of poverty, as she lacks experience being poor (I would also ask that the PB refrain from comments on oceanography, since, although she has a Ph.D., she is neither an ocean or a fish).
The document is challenging, especially with respect to its arguments wtih respect to contraception. It is [i]not[/i] what our culture teaches. Following its teachings would require real thought, discipline, and sacrifice. But, if I try to imagine what my life might have been like had I had least taken arguments such as those set forth by the bishops seriously, I can’t help but think that I would have treated several women a lot better (and that includes my wife). And as we attempt to shepherd our daughters into womanhood, I can’t help but think that a society informed by the bishops’ arguments could only be better than the toxic attitudes towards sex, marriage and relationships that have become so predominant in our own society.
#3 The “husband of one wife” criterion for a bishop is open to multiple interpretations: the “one wife” can plausibly be read as “being symbolically wedded to the church, the bride of Christ” (in whose stead the bishop acts) — and therefore celibate according to the flesh.
It can be otherwise read as: “having had/going to have only one wife” (no remarriage or divorce); or “being married to only one woman” (no polygamy); or “having only one wife at any given time” (the divorce culture provision); and now, apparently, “being allied sexually to only one person at any given time, of either gender” (TEC’s new theology).
The definitive interpretation is that decided on by the authority and tradition that one considers normative: i.e. the Petrine office and developed Catholic tradition in the West.
Married bishops have not been allowed in the Eastern and Western Churches for the vast majority of their history. It seems unlikely that there will be a change.
Re # 6
Austin
The Orthodox Church also considers celibacy among the bishops to be a matter of discipline and not doctrine. But it is a discipline that is much higher in the pecking order than say the fasting rules which are sometimes relaxed for cause. Also if my memory serves the prohibition against married bishops is confirmed by the canons of the Council of Trullo (692). The disciplinary canons of the Church councils are for he most part (with a few common sense exceptions) still enforced in Orthodoxy.
In the first words of this document, marriage is described as a “vocation.” This alone is a beautiful teaching and a wonderful gateway to serious thought about the sacrament of marriage.
My comment above was not meant to be any sort of post-modern attack on the Catholic institution of the church. I’m sure if I had the time to do a proper evaluation of this very lengthy document it would be based on it’s “conformity to Scripture, the OEcumenical Councils, Apostolic Tradition and the Consensus Patri” and draw from the various other well respected and scholarly sources in the church. All I meant was that if the body of men drafting the document were married their experience would have been beneficial to them and perhaps made the document more pastoral in its tone. Take for instance the statement, “We observe, for example, that young people esteem marriage as an ideal but can be reluctant to make the actual commitment necessary to enter and sustain it.” Perhaps if these godly bishops had made the commitment marriage requires they might be able to understand peoples reluctance to enter the into that commitment. Obviously experience isn’t the only thing one ought to apply to a proper understanding of the sacrament of marriage but I don’t think its a stretch to say that experience would have been beneficial and might have made the document better.
Gosh, it doesn’t look like the Catholic Bishops consulted the infamous 1994 TEC HOB “Teaching Document” on Human Sexuality. Can you even imagine the TEC HOB producing such a pastoral letter?
Of course this would have more credibility if it came from a group of men who have actually been married.
Re # 2
anonymousepiscopalian,
It seems to me that someone’s marital status is not by itself the criteria on which one should judge a document like this. One needs to judge it on the basis of its conformity to Scripture, the OEcumenical Councils, Apostolic Tradition and the Consensus Patri. Further it needs to be noted that married bishops is a departure from a very ancient discipline accepted throughout the church catholic (both East and West) and ratified by the canons of the Church.
In ICXC
John
#2, are you saying that Jesus and Paul would have had more credibility about matters of morality if they had been married?
Re: #3
I agree that marital status is no way to judge this document. I must say that staking your claim in the small “t” tradition (of our brothers in the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church) of celibate bishops is scripturally and big “T” tradition difficult…1 Timothy 3 clearly states that bishops (episkopos) should be “a one woman man” and Apostolic Constitutions Book 2 section 1 reaffirms the statement made by scripture. Due to a problem with nepotism the bishop of Rome decided that celibacy would be better for all those who serve God in his church. Many in the Orthodox and Catholic communities believe that the another Church council should take place to overturn the earlier (might I add untraditional and scripturally unsound) ruling…this is due to a lack of qualified candidates for bishop and priests.
#5 — I can’t speak for the Orthodox side (re bishops), but it is absolutely clear that, in the RCC, the requirement of priestly celibacy is a matter of discipline, and not of doctrine. Rome has allowed, and continues to allow, exceptions to that discipline (as, for example, in the Eastern Rite churches, and in receiving certain former Anglican priests). In the Orthodox churches, married men may become priests, but priests may not marry. I believe that the requirement of celibacy for bishops may be more of a function of the fact that bishops are drawn from the ranks of monastics, but I’m sure that there are others who contribute to this board who are far more knowledgable than me on that topic.
#2, of course, like so many in our post-modern era, assumes that experience trumps any other basis for knowledge or for teaching authority. This, of course, is wrong (as other posts above have pointed out), and, even more, is foolish. An oncologist is not required to have had cancer in order to explain how cancer develops in the body, or how to treat it. An economist is not required to have been unemployed to offer opinions about the causes of widespread unemployment and potential remedies. If #2’s position had any validity, we would expect bishops in both the RCC and ECUSA to refrain from commenting on issues of war and peace (very few have had experience in the military or diplomatic corps). And, perhaps, under #2’s theory, we could expect ECUSA’s current PB to refrain from comment on the Millenium Development Goals, or other issues of poverty, as she lacks experience being poor (I would also ask that the PB refrain from comments on oceanography, since, although she has a Ph.D., she is neither an ocean or a fish).
Some more thoughts —
The document is challenging, especially with respect to its arguments wtih respect to contraception. It is [i]not[/i] what our culture teaches. Following its teachings would require real thought, discipline, and sacrifice. But, if I try to imagine what my life might have been like had I had least taken arguments such as those set forth by the bishops seriously, I can’t help but think that I would have treated several women a lot better (and that includes my wife). And as we attempt to shepherd our daughters into womanhood, I can’t help but think that a society informed by the bishops’ arguments could only be better than the toxic attitudes towards sex, marriage and relationships that have become so predominant in our own society.
#3 The “husband of one wife” criterion for a bishop is open to multiple interpretations: the “one wife” can plausibly be read as “being symbolically wedded to the church, the bride of Christ” (in whose stead the bishop acts) — and therefore celibate according to the flesh.
It can be otherwise read as: “having had/going to have only one wife” (no remarriage or divorce); or “being married to only one woman” (no polygamy); or “having only one wife at any given time” (the divorce culture provision); and now, apparently, “being allied sexually to only one person at any given time, of either gender” (TEC’s new theology).
The definitive interpretation is that decided on by the authority and tradition that one considers normative: i.e. the Petrine office and developed Catholic tradition in the West.
Married bishops have not been allowed in the Eastern and Western Churches for the vast majority of their history. It seems unlikely that there will be a change.
Re # 6
Austin
The Orthodox Church also considers celibacy among the bishops to be a matter of discipline and not doctrine. But it is a discipline that is much higher in the pecking order than say the fasting rules which are sometimes relaxed for cause. Also if my memory serves the prohibition against married bishops is confirmed by the canons of the Council of Trullo (692). The disciplinary canons of the Church councils are for he most part (with a few common sense exceptions) still enforced in Orthodoxy.
In ICXC
John
In the first words of this document, marriage is described as a “vocation.” This alone is a beautiful teaching and a wonderful gateway to serious thought about the sacrament of marriage.
My comment above was not meant to be any sort of post-modern attack on the Catholic institution of the church. I’m sure if I had the time to do a proper evaluation of this very lengthy document it would be based on it’s “conformity to Scripture, the OEcumenical Councils, Apostolic Tradition and the Consensus Patri” and draw from the various other well respected and scholarly sources in the church. All I meant was that if the body of men drafting the document were married their experience would have been beneficial to them and perhaps made the document more pastoral in its tone. Take for instance the statement, “We observe, for example, that young people esteem marriage as an ideal but can be reluctant to make the actual commitment necessary to enter and sustain it.” Perhaps if these godly bishops had made the commitment marriage requires they might be able to understand peoples reluctance to enter the into that commitment. Obviously experience isn’t the only thing one ought to apply to a proper understanding of the sacrament of marriage but I don’t think its a stretch to say that experience would have been beneficial and might have made the document better.