Virgin forever: Jesus Christ the Eternal High Priest
My first critique on Ms.
Cookie Laguda-Alicaya’s misguided attacks on clerical celibacy may be found
here:
In Ms. Cookie Laguda-Alicaya’s
blog, a Catholic blogger named Franklin (Niteworks) commented on
Ms. Cookie Laguda-Alicaya’s criticism of celibacy. I reproduce elow Niteworks’
comment:
Hi
Cookie,
It is no surprising
that you walked away from Rome because you misunderstood the Catholic Church's
teaching.
Why do I say this?
Celibacy is not a
Catholic "teaching" as you used the word. If it is, then all
Catholics should not marry.
Celibacy is only
imposed as a matter of discipline to those who want to become a priest. No one
is forced to become one. Abstention from sex is a matter of choice.
"...He who is able
to accept this, let him accept it.” (Mt.19:12)
In 1 Cor. 7:32:35, St.
Paul who himself is single recommends (not commands) celibacy.
St. John the Baptist, the greatest of all prophets, was a virgin
"But I want you to
be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the
Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the
things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided.
The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the
Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is
concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. This I
say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what
is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord. ” (NASB)
"Celibacy is a
discipline, not a doctrine. Thus, the Church allows certain exceptions to this
requirement: for example, married Anglican priests who become Catholics can
continue to be married even if they become Catholic priests." (Chacon and
Burnham, 2004)
Are you a protestant?
Why are there so few celibate Protestant ministers when St. Paul encourages
this?
St. Paul the Apostle was a virgin
Ms. Cookie Laguda-Alicaya
responded to the comment. Ms. Aguda-Alicaya is not responsive to the points raised
by Franklin. She not only skirted the issues but went on spew more venom on the
Catholic Church. In the spirit of truth and fairness, I will respond once again
to Ms. Laguda-Alicaya’s attacks. Her words are in blue while mine are in black.
I
praise the LORD for your time in my blog. You are training me into becoming a Bible
apologetic! (Hahaha)
Excuse me. Just what
exactly is a “Bible apologetic,” Cookie? Perhaps you mean, “Bible apologist.”
Anyway, I guess we
all become one when we encounter God's Truth since we learn from the Master,
from HIS Word and are called to share it with others.
This is a straw man. What
has this got to do with Franklin’s arguments? Since no one disagrees with it, why
raise it at all?
With all due
respect (and love) for you my friend, I'd like for you to know that I beg to
disagree with your statement about my misunderstanding the Catholic Church's
teaching.
As demonstrated in my
first article,[1]
Ms. Cookie Laguda-Alicaya is woefully ignorant of Catholic doctrine.
Notwithstanding her pretension as a “devout Catholic,” Ms. Laguda-Alicaya’s
misunderstanding of the teachings of the Catholic Church raises its ugly head.
St. John the Beloved Disciple was a virgin
It is because I
CAME TO UNDERSTAND IT when I read my Catholic Bible that I was compelled to
follow Christ's way instead of the Catholic's way of teaching.
It is easy to
make this claim. There’s no way we can validate it. What understanding of
Catholic teaching is this lady crowing about? If she did understand the Church’s
teaching, she would have not left the Catholic faith: “… having condemnation because they have cast off
their first faith” (1 Timothy 5:12).
Ms. Cookie Laguda-Alicaya’s
prejudiced thinking against the Catholic Church is evident in her statement
that she was “compelled to follow Christ’s way
instead of the Catholic’s way of teaching.” For Ms. Laguda-Alicaya, the Catholic way is not
Christ’s way. On the contrary, Ms. Laguda-Alicaya, the Catholic way IS Christ’s
way and Christ’s way IS the Catholic way because the Catholic Church is the one
true Church founded by Christ. It is Ms. Cookie Aguda-Alicaya’s that is NOT
Christ’s way. It is Satan’s way. Because of her lies against the Catholic Church,
she has Satan the Devil as her father (Jn. 8:44).
Uhm, may you need
to read my sentence on Celibacy again ... because I believe I wrote (and I
quote) "Forbidding marriage is one of the main doctrines of the Catholic
church for its CLERGY." I never said it was a doctrine for everybody else,
but it was an (imposed) teaching for the clergy.
Ms. Cookie Laguda-Alicaya’s
explanation brings her nowhere. She has sunk deeper in the muck. She proffered
the lame excuse that celibacy was an imposed teaching for the clergy. Again,
Ms. Laguda-Alicaya doesn’t get it! Celibacy is not a teaching, it is a discipline.
That’s what Franklin told her: “Celibacy is only
imposed as a matter of discipline
to those who want to become a priest. No one is forced to become one.
Abstention from sex is a matter of choice.”
Next, celibacy is not
even a discipline for all the Catholic clergy. In my previous article, I
already mentioned that Catholic priests of the Eastern Rite may marry.
Converts from Episcopalian clergy who continue to serve as priests in the
Catholic Church are married. Permanent deacons are married. Thus, Ms.
Laguda-Alicaya’s statement that celibacy is “an (imposed) teaching for the
clergy” without qualification is sorely inaccurate.
And to think that she
claims to understand Catholic teaching!
The Blessed Virgin Mary, Ever Virgin
And no, this is not
a misunderstanding of it because allow me to quote from the Catholic Catechism
on Celibacy itself which said:
"1580 In the
Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries:
while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be
ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered
legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their
communities. 73 Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the
Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the
Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man WHO HAS ALREADY RECEIVED THE
SACRAMENT of Holy Orders CAN NO LONGER MARRY. (emphasis added) 73 Cf. PO 16. English
Translation of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church for the United States of
America © 1997, United States Catholic Conference, Inc."
After reading the words “can no
longer marry,” Ms. Cookie Laguda-Alicaya
pats herself at the back but ignores the previous statement about “the
many priests [who] have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God.” Did Ms. Laguda Alicaya bother to ask why those who
have received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry? She did not
inquire further. Well, to educate Ms. Laguda-Alicaya anew, those who received
the sacrament of holy orders made a vow not to marry. And they must
fulfill their vows. “I will fulfill my vows to the
LORD in the presence of all his people” (Ps. 116:18). Nobody forced them to make a vow – they were
absolutely free to do so. This is no different from marriage where the spouses
make a vow to take each other as husband and wife, for richer or for poorer, in
sickness and in health, until death do them part. For this reason, the Catholic
Church is opposed to divorce because it is concerned with
the keeping of the marriage vow – in the same manner that it is concerned with
the keeping of the vow of those who renounced marriage for the sake of the
Kingdom of God (Mt. 19:12). No double standard. This should knock some sense in
the biased mind of Ms. Cookie Laguda-Alicaya.
Cookie Laguda-Alicaya, not a virgin
The Apostle Paul never addresses himself as "parqenos" (virgin) in any of his writings, in fact in 1 Corinthians 7:8 Paul uses the Greek word agamos which means "no longer married" such as a widow or divorcee. Being a good Pharisee (Acts 23:6) "following the traditions of his people (Gal 1:13-14) and a member of the Sanhedrin Paul would have been married, and definitely not a virgin.
ReplyDelete