Christian Classics Ethereal Library

[Mateo el Feo]

From time to time, I use ccel.org to track down writings from the Early Church Fathers. I realize that the site is maintained by a Reformed Church (Calvin College), but I find it a useful resource. Every so often, the editors add commentary to the translated texts which betray their loyalties to their particular beliefs. But I think the most recent editorial comment I've read just takes the cake. Before I quote it, let me quote part of their mission statement ([url="http://www.ccel.org/about/mission.html"]found here[/url]):[quote]The values guiding the collection and activities of the CCEL include:

[b]Orthodoxy[/b]—Writings in the library for the most part represent orthodox Christianity as understood by mainstream Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christians, with greater emphases on Reformed and Protestant writings.

[b]Ecumenicity[/b]—The CCEL strives to expose readers to a variety of Christian perspectives.[/quote]Fair enough, they'd like to emphasize Reformed and Protestant writings. I can understand that. So, let's get to a particular Early Church Father: Clement of Alexandria. I found my way to one of his writings on their site, and the text was only provided in Latin. Interestingly, all of the other writings of Clement were provided in English. But, the editors were kind enough to let us know why ([url="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.iii.html"]link[/url]):[quote]After much consideration, the Editors have deemed it best to give the whole of this book in Latin. [In the former Book, Clement has shown, not without a decided leaning to chaste celibacy, that marriage is a holy estate, and consistent with the perfect man in Christ. He now enters upon the refutation of the false-Gnostics and their licentious tenets. Professing a stricter rule to begin with, and despising the ordinances of the Creator, their result was the grossest immorality in practice. The melancholy consequences of an enforced celibacy are, here, all foreseen and foreshown; and this Book, though necessarily offensive to our Christian tastes, is most useful as a commentary upon the history of monasticism, and the celibacy of priests, in the Western churches. The resolution of the Edinburgh editors to give this Book to scholars only, in the Latin, is probably wise. I subjoin a succint analysis, in the elucidations.][/quote]According to the editors, Clement's book is "necessarily offensive to our Christian tastes"...so they're leaving it in Latin to hide it from all those poor non-scholars out there in cyberspace.

Oddly, we Catholics get our fill of anti-Catholics who claim that the Catholic Church "hid" the Holy Scriptures and other writings from the common people by keeping text in Latin. Of course, Latin has historically been both a scholarly and a liturgical language. For example, few would fault doctors and lawyers for "hiding" their subject matter from common people when they rely on Latin.

In any event, here we have a group of scholars within the Reformed Church tradition (ostensibly champions of the vulgar tongue) who found it useful to hide text from the tender eyes of their readers by keeping it in Latin. A little ironic.

[kateri05]

[quote]melancholy consequences of an enforced celibacy[/quote]

as opposed to an unenforced celibacy? so sad that these people have never seem to have met HAPPY priests and religious!

[Innocent]

I see your point. It is ironic.

Is that the same Calvin College where Peter Kreeft graduated from?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Innocent' post='1398274' date='Oct 6 2007, 02:31 AM']Is that the same Calvin College where Peter Kreeft graduated from?[/quote]Yes, the one in Grand Rapids, MI.

[beatty07]

that is amusing.

[Paddington]

First of all, I don't know Latin. Germania est in Europa, but still I don't know it. I never read the writings by Clement either. However, I read the same snippet from the CCEL webpage and came away with a very different interpretation. I could be wrong about some details. I hope you will let me know if I am.

Here goes...


"The resolution of the Edinburgh editors to give this Book to scholars only, in the Latin, is probably wise. I subjoin a succint analysis, in the elucidations."


Who are these Edingburgh editors? Were they the middle man?


"In the former Book, Clement has shown, [i]not without a decided leaning to chaste celibacy[/i], that marriage is a holy estate, and consistent with the perfect man in Christ."


In the [i]former Book[/i]. Not this particular book.
CCEL web-editor-guys also mention Clement's leaning to [i]chaste celibacy[/i] in the English intro. They did not have to do that. They did, because it was the correct thing to do. That does not surprise me, as Calvin College has a great reputation. I know people who attended, and they say that the Theology courses there were top-notch. The college also has a reputation for being "fair and balanced" as well as intelligent.


"He now enters upon the refutation of the false-Gnostics and their licentious tenets. Professing a stricter rule to begin with, and despising the ordinances of the Creator, their result was the grossest immorality in practice. The melancholy consequences of an enforced celibacy are, here, all foreseen and foreshown."

[i]Enforced celibacy[/i] is a false-Gnostic idea. It is [i]not[/i] a Roman Catholic idea. Vows of celibacy are chosen. In this Book, Clement [i]denounces the stricter rule of the false-Gnostics.[/i]
Clement apparently makes the argument that the enforced celibacy of the false-Gnostics leads to immorality.


"and this Book, though necessarily offensive to our Christian tastes, is most useful as a commentary upon the history of monasticism, and the celibacy of priests, in the Western churches."

This book apparently covers [i]sexual, offensive content[/i]. Clement shows how the stricter (than Roman Catholic) rule leads to extreme immorality. He must cover "adult themes" to make this argument. He strays from simply a doctrinal refutation to "case-studies." The Edinburgh editors did not want non-scholars reading it for this reason.



If I am correct in interpreting these words, then it is similar to a thread concerning lust having some of its posts deleted to protect the thoughts of readers. It also reminds me of when my priest friend was on an advisory board for a proposed strip-club law in the city. He gave the gist of his p.o.v. in the parish bulletin, but also said it is better not to even read the legislation as doing so could be an occasion for sin.

Peace,
Paddington

[Seven77]

interesting...i never read their commentary/forward stuff.