Karl Keating's E-Letter of February 8, 2005

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by Karl Keating

Women accompanied our Lord on his travels, and not a single one of them was his wife, no matter what Dan Brown might claim. Scripture does not indicate that this arrangement caused scandal.

But not "a" woman. 1 Cor. 9:5 does not suggest a plurality of women: "Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the Apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"

Do you not accept the verse at face value and in its simplicity because you need to defend your church tradition? Would that not be an argument from prejudice?

[qmvsimp]

First, we know that Peter had a wife. Whether or not she was alive during his ministry or whether she traveled with him is not known for sure.



Second, the answer to the question above will not help or hurt the current Latin-rite practice of mandating celibacy for priests, contrary to Ozzie’s claim.



Third, anyone who accepts the Bible must accept Saint Paul’s comments about celibacy in 1 Cor 7:7-33. I wonder if Serendipity would be so bold as to tell Paul that he was wrong in his pronouncements in 1 Corinthians.



Serendipity’s comments lack any historical evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that financial reasons motivate priestly celibacy. To the claim that celibacy promotes evil, there is also no evidence. In fact, married clergy have the same incidence of sexual improprieties as celibate clergy.



Mary Magdalene and other early church women have been proclaimed Saints by the Church. Proclaiming someone a Saint is a very ineffective way to diminish their accomplishments.



Note how married men are allowed to read the gospel, preach in church and teach in our Universities and Catechism classes. Married men are not excluded from Church ministry at all.



No one is making married life seem sinful. I ask Serendipity to please quote any Church leader who has ever made such a comment. I read the Bible twice a week and go to church once a week. That is certainly not sinful. But I’ll be the first to honor those whose sacrifice for God is greater than my own, without diminishing my own sacrifices. The same can be said for someone who chooses celibacy as a sacrifice to God.

[Nehez]

The question that is in dispute, if I got it right, is whether or not the word wife in 1 Corinthians 9:5 is intended to mean "wife", "woman", or "women". 1Corithinans 9:5 reads "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas?" (RSV-CE). As discussed in the Feb 1st email, in Matthew 8:14-15, Jesus healed Peter's(Cephas) mother-in-law. I think it is safe to say that anyone with a mother-in-law must have been married. So then if Paul saying that he has the right to be accompanied by a wife, as Cephas was accompanied, who we know to have been married, can we not infer that the word is meant to mean wife?

[Shepard]

God Bless you Karl in your ministry and for helping all of us understand our faith better. I just got done reading Catholicism and Fundamentalism and it was awesome! Thanks again for all your hard work!

[Listener]

Even though I believe in having a male-only priesthood, I don't think that it is necessary to downplay the possibility that St. Peter had a wife. After all, don't some of the priests in the non Roman branches of the Catholic Church still have wives today? It seems to me that Karl believes that it would have been somehow inappropriate for St. Peter to have a wife. Well, whether or not she was alive at the time, it sure looks like he was married at some point. It's nice to know that God chose a man who was a husband at some point to head His Church. I think that probably made him more qualified.

While we're on the subject, they used to have female deacons in the early Church. The men today try to downplay their role, like their function was to serve coffee or something, but it is still true that they were called deacons. It might be a good idea to reinstate the idea of female deacons.

Another mysterious sentence in the Bible is in Romans 16, starting at Verse 6. Paul is sending greetings, and he includes greetings to those outstanding APOSTLES Andronicus and Junias. A priest who has a doctor's degree in Theology told me that in the older versions of scripture, it is not Junias but Junia (a woman). He said that it was changed to the male form of the word somewhere along the line because they simply couldn't have handled the thought that a woman could have been referred to as an apostle!

[qmvsimp]

Originally Posted by Listener

It seems to me that Karl believes that it would have been somehow inappropriate for St. Peter to have a wife.

Karl is making no such ascertion. Peter clearly had a wife at some point. It has nothing to do with the Latin-rite practice of mandating celibacy for priests.

The question is whether the quote in question refers to wife or women.

The outcome of this question is for historical curiousity, nothing more.

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by qmvsimp

Second, the answer to the question above will not help or hurt the current Latin-rite practice of mandating celibacy for priests, contrary to Ozzie’s claim.

Where did I make this claim?

[qmvsimp]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

Do you not accept the verse at face value and in its simplicity because you need to defend your church tradition? Would that not be an argument from prejudice?

Right here. The issue of whether woman, women or wife has nothing to do with the nine-hundred-year-old Latin-rite tradition of celibate priests.

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by qmvsimp

Right here. The issue of whether woman, women or wife has nothing to do with the nine-hundred-year-old Latin-rite tradition of celibate priests.

My comment was based on his response to me that I was working from a postion of prejudice and not reason. I simply responded that his complex interpretation was not based on the simplicity of the text but tradition. Hence, would he not be working from a position of prejudice? I didn't attack your tradition, I merely suggested that the tradition was the basis of his interpretation. You read too much into it.

[challenger]

The e-letter said debate closed... but I couldn't let it sit in a tie like that.

My vote: Karl Keating is not an idiot.

Not an idiot wins 2:1!

[Thomas A]

Years ago, watching an Andy Hardy movie, I learned the "Epistles" were the wives of the apostles.