In short, he was very much a typical cleric of his time who finally chose to stop the pretense . . .
Yes, these are sad examples. I did not know about this at all. Never really studied Zwingli's life.
So, did God forgive him when he sincerely confessed these things as sin?
Seems the parallel to Bill Clinton is wrong; who does not seem to be honest or sincere and continued his many encounters.
I Corinthians 7:9
It is better to marry than to burn with lust.
No excuse for the sin; but . . .
The RCC rule of celibacy for clergy is overboard, and was a big mistake. The blanket cookie cutter rule caused and still does contribute to a lot of unnecessary problems. Only those with the charismatic gift of celibacy should live that way. I Cor. 7:7; Matthew 19:11
I Corinthians 7:9
It is better to marry than to burn with lust.
The trouble is this same passage is being used to justify gay marriage. It was also used to justify divorce with remarriage. If I have lust does that not trump everything? But Paul did not intend this to be used to set aside all other sexual morality. It was assumed only to cover the case where marriage was a valid option.
Ken asks:
So, did God forgive him when he sincerely confessed these things as sin?
God is always true to His promise. No doubt he was forgiven each and every time he confessed, repented and recieved absolution. May God have mercy on him and on all of us.
---
Seems the parallel to Bill Clinton is wrong; who does not seem to be honest or sincere and continued his many encounters.
I take your point well. I am in no better position to judge Clinton's soul than I am Zwingli's--or yours. If there is a parallel at all it would have to be in those who would merely excuse a pattern of sin because they approve of the opinions of the actor. To be fair, I can't imagine any Protestant I know who would excuse this behavior.
The sinfulness of a person does not necessarily correlate to the soundness or lack of soundness of his doctrine. Many a man who continually succumbs to temptation also holds sound doctrine.
---
I Corinthians 7:9
It is better to marry than to burn with lust.
Yes, and the call to chastity is answered in grace, whether through celibacy or fidelity in marriage.
---
No excuse for the sin; but . . .
I'm sure you appreciate that anytime we say "no excuse for X, but...." we should warn ourselves against the possibility of equivocation to follow.
---
The RCC rule of celibacy for clergy is overboard, and was a big mistake.
Mere assertion does not make this so. If we look at the state of the clergy prior to celibacy and after one might not be so quick to judge. Regardless, it was part of what Zwingli vowed before God and man to follow with full knowledge. One might make a vow that turns out to be a "mistake" as did Hosea, but the vow still holds.
---
The blanket cookie cutter rule caused and still does contribute to a lot of unnecessary problems. Only those with the charismatic gift of celibacy should live that way. I Cor. 7:7; Matthew 19:11
I agree that accepting the grace to live a celibate life is a chrism, but then so also is the accepting of grace to follow the “blanket cookie-cutter rule” we must live chaste and faithful lives. Further, I believe such grace is available for the celibate, the unmarried and the married; however, we can choose to accept or reject it. God tells us we must accept grace by our own free will. What was the thorn in St. Paul's side? We do not know. Perhaps even this great Apostle struggled as did Zwingli. If his thorn was one of temptation, then grace did not mean that St. Paul’s thorn vanished, but that he had to apprehend the sufficient grace available to him to resist the temptation.
If it is unjust to condemn Protestantism based on Zwingli's or others' infidelity (and I personally believe it is unjust.), it is no more just to condemn mandatory clerical celibacy on the same basis.
Respectfully, submitted for your prayerful consideration,
I remain by grace your servant and brother in Chr
The trouble is this same passage is being used to justify gay marriage.
that is just too obviously wrong -- Romans 1, Lev. 18:22, 20:13, Genesis 19, Judges 19, I Cor. 6:9-11; I Timothy 1:8-11.
I think we are agreement on this point; so you don't really have a point here.
It was also used to justify divorce with remarriage.
That was Jesus' point in Matthew 5:27-32. He was linking the cause of many divorces and remarriages with lust. That is also obviously wrong and this and the other point you make; we both would agree with.
If I have lust does that not trump everything?
No. And I don't justify Zwingli at all for what he did.
But Paul did not intend this to be used to set aside all other sexual morality.
You are absolutely right on this point. We agree.
ROFLMAO!...The "Bill Clinton" of Protestant Reformers...Dave that was funny.
It's funny that I get accused all the time by several anti-Catholics (White, Swan, King, Svendsen) of supposedly being a vow-breaker for merely "resolving" in exasperation to not write about anti-Catholics again (never having remotely come close to making a "vow" at all), yet the real vow-breakers are their own founders: many of whom were priests and who openly broke their vows, to the cheers of the Protestant masses.
Hey, if I write about the "bad popes", why not also the "bad 'reformers' "? Goose and gander . . . I'm an equal opportunity truth-teller. "Just the facts, ma'am."
[for all you young whippersnappers, that was a line from the old TV series Dragnet]
"It's funny that I get accused all the time by several anti-Catholics (White, Swan, King, Svendsen) of supposedly being a vow-breaker for merely "resolving" in exasperation to not write about anti-Catholics again (never having remotely come close to making a "vow" at all), yet the real vow-breakers are their own founders: many of whom were priests and who openly broke their vows, to the cheers of the Protestant masses."
You touch on a good point, Dave. Sraining at a gnat while swallowing a camel is a lot easier than we we want to admit. It's always seemed strange to me when people who seem scandalized by the very notion of Magesterium display dogmatic allegience to Luther, Calvin, Zwingli et al as sacrosanct.
Hi Theo,
Yep, and how dare we unregenerate, Pelagian, idolatrous papists ever deign to criticize these holy, God-ordained men!
I added a little satirical swipe at Zwingli's "reasoning" to the end of the paper, and a link to the new paper on Luther's ridiculous views on adultery and frigidity.
Ken,
You are missing the point. We do agree on gay marriage. My point was that text cannot be used to justify it. But your usage of the text was exactly parallel. That it is OK to violate a vow of celibacy. Celibacy only creates one more restriction on marriage. Why is that one wrong and all the others are OK? Just because you disagree with it? You need to be consistent.
Zwingli's case goes way beyond a problem with celibacy. He had sex with too many women to assume that he would have been chaste if married. That is the case for many who see the church's rules on sex as too strict. You end up needing sexual self control at some point anyway. There is no reason to believe you can draw a line somewhere else if you can't draw one where the church suggests.
I am not assuming, myself that Zwingli kept up his philandering after he got married (which is why I deliberately used the term "fornicator"): and my sources do not suggest that.
Nor am I condemning him forever for falling in this area, as if no mercy and forgiveness can be extended. I am mainly objecting to these things:
1) Zwingli's rotgut locker-room-stud type rationalizations for his conduct.
2) How he uses his own shortcomings to cynically, unfairly bash clerical celibacy.
3) How Catholic sexual abuses of the period are trumpeted so often, yet corresponding Protestant sins and even outrageous doctrinal changes regarding marriage and divorce are overlooked.
4) The amazingly casual, cavalier attitude towards sacred vows, that the Bible takes extremely seriously indeed. A vow is specifically made under God, and is binding.
The RCC rule of celibacy for clergy is overboard, and was a big mistake.
Celibacy is difficult, yes, but we should never say it’s a “big mistake.” For those called to it, celibacy is a very sacred thing. Of course, for the reformers, nothing could be more intolerable than the Church’s "abominable celibacy." http://books.google.com/books?
id...h4tpx1fnwBm0Y7M
Just too much of a sacrifice I suppose.
But you know, Ken, speaking of sacrifice, there's an old WWII poster which my mother kept in her room - as far back as I can remember. It seemed to have a special meaning for her. Just recently I uploaded it to Flickr. I thought I'd share it here. It has helped me.
And nowadays, whenever I’m tempted to complain about something difficult, something disagreeable (and believe me, I can complain with the best of them), I find myself thinking more and more about that poster and of the meaning of real sacrifice, and of those haunting words, “and YOU talk of sacrifices!”
Peace.
I am not assuming, myself that Zwingli kept up his philandering after he got married
I didn't mean to suggest that either. I just don't assume that when he was sexually impure that had he been allowed to marry he would have been pure. That is often where people go and there is no reason for it. If he was pure later in life it was because his spiritual situation changed and not because of his marital status changed.
Ken:
Regarding the burden of celibacy: as a young man I considered the priesthood as my vocation. I was accepted as a seminarian. However, in addition to some concerns I had at the time with some of the unsanctioned theology that had wormed its way into the particular seminary (This was near the height of the post Vat II overboard reaction of liberalization in the American Church.), I realized that my own libido would burden me to the point of constant temptation to vow breaking. In part, it was my knowing the seriousness of what my vows would require, that led me away from that vocation. Nobody held a sword to my neck and forced me to go through with it anyway. Zwingli was no more forced to take his vows than was I.
Later, even as a married man, I had (to my shame) been hard pressed to keep faith with my vows when I was younger. Never in that time did it occur to me that the requirements of fidelity and chastity I vowed were overboard or a mistake--simply that as a man with a disposition toward sin and carnality, I sometimes wished to violate it and that I was he problem—not my vow. The vow no more compelled me to desire adultery than did Zwingli's vow compel him to desire fornication.
To trivialize the violation of this vow is to trivialize all vows. To condemn ordained celibacy--a solemn vow to live a chaste, unmarried life in the service of God, is not only unfair; it is downright insulting to the many hundreds of thousands of religious who to this very day, faithfully live out their service to God in this condition. As Saint Paul made absolutely clear, such dedication is a holy virtue, and I find myself concerned for those who profess this worthy Saint's words as inspired, yet call evil what he called sacred.
Humbly, I submit this for your consideration as a fellow servant and brother in Christ who is our only Lord and Savior,
--Theo
Is is this what is left of the great reformers? Just a bunch of guys that thought the Catholic Church was too harsh in telling them that they had to keep it in their pants?
Of course, technically, no one "told" them anything: a vow being completely voluntary (not a matter of coercive civil law). But the lusts of the flesh can overcome a vow if one isn't intent on keeping it any longer.
Theo and Dave and Randy:
Most all of what you say is right. I am not justifying the attitudes of Zwingli nor his sinful actions.
I agree that some have been called to that charisma - I Cor. 7:7-9; Matthew 19:11.
The problem is that the RCC has made it an extra rule for all ordained ministers; when most of the ordained ministers in the NT were married -- I Cor. 9:5
the rest of the apostles
the brothers of the Lord
and Cephas
(except for those already married, then converted and became priests; and the eastern Catholics (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Palestine;
By the way, why? Why can't European (western/USA/canada/australian) priests get married? Why the difference? )
It seems only Paul had this gift. (not clear on what Barnabas' status was) The evidence is clearly in favor of more being married, and only a few having the gift of celibacy.
Yes, vows are very serious. (Ecclesiastes 5:5) Better not to vow. Theo, you made the right decision. I appreciated you sharing all that.
Ken,
I Corinthians 9:5 reads, in the Doauy-Rheims Bible:
"Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"
Other Bibles, like yours or the 1991 New American Bible, for example, the same verse reads:
"Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?"
And which is the right translation? The words translated as "a woman, a sister" in the Douay, and as "Christian wife" in the NAB, are "adelphên gunaika" in the Greek. "Gunaika" means both "woman" and "wife," just as "femme" does in French; "adelphên" means "sister." Paul used "adelphên" to modify "gunaika" in order to make clear that he was not referring to "wives," Christian or not, but to female disciples such as those that always followed Jesus -- women who are referred to as "gunaika" in Matt. 27:55-56, Luke 8:1-3, etc.
Besides, the verse cannot be construed to mean that Paul supported a minister's 'right' to marry or that "most of the ordained ministers in the NT were married." Paul was talking about having **help** in his ministry (read the verse in its context: 1 Cor.9:3-7), in the form of a travelling companion--he elsewhere clearly says marriage is not for him (1 Cor.7:7), and encourages Christians as a whole (not just ministers!) NOT to marry if they can avoid lust: 1 Cor.7:25-40.
Jon,
I never heard or read anything like that before! That was very interesting and new and something for me to look at more deeply.
At first glance, it doesn't make sense. Single women traveling companions? Doesn't that give more temptation? Seems like it should be the opposite, " a believing wife", who would also serve and minister and partner in the work.
But, yes, I realise that Jesus had a group of female disciples who served and had money to help with expenses and food, etc. Luke 8:1-3, some were married, "contributed", and "had many others" (than the ones named).
Commenting by HaloScan
