Australian bishop backs reconsideration of celibacy, women's ordination

[quiet52]

celibate priests isn’t dogma. i was always taught in school (by a very conservative teacher) that it was an issue capable of being changed in the future. however, i do not support the married priesthood. celibacy is the one thing that stands in my way of considering the priesthood. i know the “married to the bride of christ, the church” thing. but the only reason i do not advocate allowing married priests is simply because we can not support them. a lot of catholics would have a hard enough time coughing up $10 at mass in the collection basket. it’s our fault as a congregation priests can’t get married, the family would go hungry. if we gave enough to provide for them a sufficient life, i’d support it. but we’re not that responsible/reliable.

I think we’ll see a myriad of complications if the latin rite loosens its discipline of clerical celibacy. Yes, supporting the priests and their families would be a HUGE issue. We’re barely supporting our parishes in many places right now. Think about it … If a priest and his wife have children (and they will, if truly practicing Catholics, being fruitful and multiplying) – we would need to support the entire family – lodging, food, clothing, cars, medical insurance, property insurance, long-term care insurance for when they age, emergencies, other living expenses, attorneys fees if one of the kids gets in trouble with the law… Etc. We will not have the authority (and shouldn’t have it) to tell the wife SHE must earn an income if they want children. Think of the unease of the parishioners, wondering how much of their donations are supporting the family, vs. the rest of the parish. Any pastor – or any priest for that matter – with a wife and children would be suspect, no matter how responsible and prudent he is.

It may be true that many eastern rite Catholic priests who are married earn income from other jobs. Their congregations are smaller, compared to the congregations of the latin rite priests – here in the west at least.

 

[Conciliar]

On Women’s ordination, history has shown them as having deacon roles in the past and there have been no problems with any other Christian denomination who have adopted it. They are giving us good data when the time comes to debate it again sometime in the future.

That’s incorrect. The “deaconess” was not ordained, but rather was a layperson who assisted chiefly in the baptism of females as a matter of decency as immersion was the common practice. Women cannot receive Holy Orders, that would include the diaconate every bit as much as the priesthood.

 

[thegame]

To say this discussion is over, is really nonsense. I realize all the issues that arise when a Preist (who takes vows of povert), having a family, creates a string of other issues.

Thats no reason not to do it! In the U.S. 4,000 churches are without a Priest! Many other Priests are being stretched to the point of exhaustion!

Priests were once married my friends, and is it not “sexist” to not at least have female deacons.

This wouldn’t mean we couldn’t maintain “celebate” Preists, or make the Orders (Franciscans, etc.) keep this tradition.

Frankly, do any of my fellow Catholics not look at the suffering of the “abuse scandalS” (yea thats a capital S, indicating many), and think this discussion is over?

 

[geezerbob]

To say this discussion is over, is really nonsense. I realize all the issues that arise when a Preist (who takes vows of povert), having a family, creates a string of other issues.

Thats no reason not to do it! In the U.S. 4,000 churches are without a Priest! Many other Priests are being stretched to the point of exhaustion!

Priests were once married my friends, and is it not “sexist” to not at least have female deacons.

This wouldn’t mean we couldn’t maintain “celebate” Preists, or make the Orders (Franciscans, etc.) keep this tradition.

Frankly, do any of my fellow Catholics not look at the suffering of the “abuse scandalS” (yea thats a capital S, indicating many), and think this discussion is over?

JPII’s pronouncement that the Church had no authority to ordain women, which would include the diaconate, should have put an end to that part of the discussion, at least among orthodox Catholics. It just ain’t gonna happen, not now, not later, and the Church seldom worries about politically correct labels such as “sexist.” There are numerous ways in which women can serve the Church, just not as ordained clergy.

There are plenty of ongoing discussions here on the abuse problems where you can post your opinions. Since the vast majority of them involve homosexual priests molesting teen boys, I don’t see why the issue should be brought into a discussion about married clergy. The two topics are not related.

My personal opinion is that the Church should take advantage of the many devout empty nesters among her members who would become priests if that option were available to them. Most are educated (less seminary time), have already made their mark in the business world, and would not be totally dependent on the parish for financial support.

On the other hand, if Catholics contributed as much as Baptists, supporting a priest and his family would not be an issue in any but the smallest and poorest parishes.

 

[Nohome]

My personal opinion is that the Church should take advantage of the many devout empty nesters among her members who would become priests if that option were available to them. Most are educated (less seminary time), have already made their mark in the business world, and would not be totally dependent on the parish for financial support.

This is actually a pretty good idea, except of course, all the “empty nesters” are married. Many men become deacons in the autumn of their lives, so why not have them be priests?

On the other hand, if Catholics contributed as much as Baptists, supporting a priest and his family would not be an issue in any but the smallest and poorest parishes.

According to CARA, Catholic give about 1% of thier income to the church where protestants give 2%. Historically, catholics were poor in this county so it was 1% of just about nothing. Now many Catholics are quite affluent, but they quit going to church.

Nohome

 

[rr1213]

I think we’ll see a myriad of complications if the latin rite loosens its discipline of clerical celibacy. Yes, supporting the priests and their families would be a HUGE issue. We’re barely supporting our parishes in many places right now. Think about it … If a priest and his wife have children (and they will, if truly practicing Catholics, being fruitful and multiplying) – we would need to support the entire family – lodging, food, clothing, cars, medical insurance, property insurance, long-term care insurance for when they age, emergencies, other living expenses, attorneys fees if one of the kids gets in trouble with the law…

It is not a big deal. Protestant Churches support their married clergy and their families all the time. Moreover, there are more Catholics than Protestants and from what I’ve seen the average Catholic Church has many times more parishioners than the average Protestant Church.

 

[Caesar]

It is not a big deal. Protestant Churches support their married clergy and their families all the time. Moreover, there are more Catholics than Protestants and from what I’ve seen the average Catholic Church has many times more parishioners than the average Protestant Church.

While most protestant churches are largely independant (at least financially), Catholic parishes are not. A percentage of the revenue from the parish would go to the Diocese.

Also, most protestants give more money to their church (and in comparison to Catholics, protestants are more affluent). Some of the evangelical and fundamentalist types require tithing.

 

[rr1213]

While most protestant churches are largely independant (at least financially), Catholic parishes are not. A percentage of the revenue from the parish would go to the Diocese.

Also, most protestants give more money to their church (and in comparison to Catholics, protestants are more affluent). Some of the evangelical and fundamentalist types require tithing.

There are plenty of Protestant Churches that are not independent financially, this would be true of at least the United Methodist, Episcopal and LCMS Churches and probably others. Moreover, think of the difference in size. I know that there are large and small Catholic Parishes and large and small Protestant Churches, but around here at least you are talking about Catholic Parishes that might have 3-4 thousand members while Protestant Churches are often looking at less than 500.

 

[Caesar]

There are plenty of Protestant Churches that are not independent financially, this would be true of at least the United Methodist, Episcopal and LCMS Churches and probably others. Moreover, think of the difference in size. I know that there are large and small Catholic Parishes and large and small Protestant Churches, but around here at least you are talking about Catholic Parishes that might have 3-4 thousand members while Protestant Churches are often looking at less than 500.

Even so, I doubt that the Methodists or even the Episcopalians are as dependant on their own institutions as a Catholic parish is to it’s diocese.

You mention that Catholic parishes are larger. This may be true, but consider that in North America, less than a third of registered parishoners attend Mass regularly; even less then that donate any substantial funds (I used to help the ushers at my old parish sometimes- it was a common sight to see an entire family put a quarter in the collection basket). My current parish (which is the Cathedral) has over 8000 parishoners, out of which about 700 attend one of the Masses on Sunday- the weekly collection renders about $4,000, which means that each parishoner donates roughly $5.50 a week.

 

[rr1213]

You mention that Catholic parishes are larger. This may be true, but consider that in North America, less than a third of registered parishoners attend Mass regularly; even less then that donate any substantial funds (I used to help the ushers at my old parish sometimes- it was a common sight to see an entire family put a quarter in the collection basket). My current parish (which is the Cathedral) has over 8000 parishoners, out of which about 700 attend one of the Masses on Sunday- the weekly collection renders about $4,000, which means that each parishoner donates roughly $5.50 a week.

It’s all a matter of perspective. I spent 18 years in an Episcopal Parish which was doing great if we had 120 people in the pews on Sunday. In contrast, while considering the Catholic Church, I attended a Catholic Parish that had around 500 at each Mass and a Sunday Mass schedule of three or four Masses, not counting the Saturday night Mass. BIG, BIG difference.

Still, at my Episcopal Parish, we supported not only our Priest and his family, but a paid music director, a paid part-time (retired) Priest and a paid secretary. There were a lot of folks who tithed in that Parish and even those that did not tithe gave more than nominal sums each Sunday. Things have gone a bit downhill for that Parish in some ways (fallout from the recent great unpleasantness in the Episcopal Church) but they are still surviving with a smaller staff, but still a paid Priest.

Why are Catholics giving at a lower rate?

 

[Riley259]

Now this is a Bishop who needs our prayers. He should look at what’s happened in the Episcopalian Church and realize that married priests and women’s ordination is not the answer! The cafeteria is closed.

Link

I’m confident Cardinal Pell will take care of this guy.

 

[thegame]

First, many of you are wrong w/ your assertions about money given, etc. Moreover, we’re talking about celibacy and. . .

Since the vast majority of them involve homosexual priests molesting teen boys, I don’t see why the issue should be brought into a discussion about married clergy. The two topics are not related.

• geezerbob

HERE’S WHY THEY’RE RELATED: Celibacy keeps many men who would be excellent Priests out of the Priesthood. They are some times replaced by homosexuals who see the church as a way to live a respected life. The church has harbored a group of men who otherwise would be gay maybe forever (don’t believe me, if you know a Priest who trusts you - ask him!)

More straight Priests in the pipeline would “out” these perpetrators early in the process, and make the whole system better.

This issue has made Catholicism, superior to other forms of Christianity and other faiths in nearly all theological ways, nearly undefendable in public circles.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Making celibacy optional will bring more men to be priests again. It is an idea whose time has come again.

On Women’s ordination, history has shown them as having deacon roles in the past and there have been no problems with any other Christian denomination who have adopted it. They are giving us good data when the time comes to debate it again sometime in the future.

There are married Catholic priests today, typically converted from Lutheranism or Episcopalianism. The issue could be discussed, since the requirement for celibacy in priests is not doctrinal, but a matter of discipline. Remaining celibate is biblically recommended, most strongly in Matthew 19:12, and in Paul’s epistles, which note that one who remains single can devote all of their attention to the Kingdom of God, while one who is married must divert their attention to their wife and family. As such, it’s not like celibacy is a “useless artifact”.

However, the inability of the Church to ordain women IS doctrinal, and cannot be changed. (While doctrinal matters have been defined and clarified over time, they have not changed.)

It is not only incorrect to imply that the Catholic Church is merely a Christian “denomination”, but it should also be noted that the Christian churches who have instituted a version of women’s ordination have committed (or are committing) forms of institutional suicide.

They may not have begun with the practice of ordaining women, and they may not have disappeared as yet, but they have begun their own demises. Much like infecting oneself with cancer, which grows to consume & eventually kill, acceptance of women’s ordination, typically based on claims of being “just about equality”, open the door to all of the related claims that violate Christian (not to mention Catholic) teaching. They become tolerant of & condone other “equality” related issues like homosexual behavior, contraception, and abortion, just to name a few. (All three are truly about lustful self-gratification, while the justification is about “equality” and/or “civil rights”.) Note the way the Episcopalian church has gone of late, as mentioned by others like Bones.

Besides, the fact that the Church cannot ordain women as priests doesn’t mean that women cannot have or pursue vocations of service in the Church. Priestess-hood is simply something the Church doesn’t have the power to grant, so shouldn’t be seen as either a pursuit or an option.

Discussion of priestly celibacy and whether it should continue or be loosened is possible - discussion of Priestesses is not.

 

[thegame]

Remaining celibate is biblically recommended, most strongly in Matthew 19:12

? I’m not a Biblical scholar by a long shot, but isn’t that very Protestant of you to pluck a sentence or two out of context, to make a point?

Ironically Matthew 19 looks to me to be about marriage, the specific section you’re refering to is simply saying eunuchs (depending on where you ask, “those w’out genitals or homosexuals or those w/out attraction to woman, etc) shouldn’t get married. I think looked at as a whole, and not sentece by sentence, the point is how marriage is the natural progression of life (”…two shall become one flesh") Not about the Priesthood?
Here’s the point
Catholic Priests were originally married. I think a Priest taking a vow of celibacy is wonderful, and that discipline can be preserved.

However, if the system doesn’t change somewhere (young Deacons who can afford to support a family?), this crisis will continue to damage the Church (4,000 churches in U.S. alone have no Priest, and anytime I want to talk to one its like making an appointment w/ the President because they’re over stretched.)

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

I don’t think making celibacy optional will make young men any more attracted to the priesthood. Vocations just are not being encouraged, for the most part.

I spent my freshman year of high school at Quigley Prep in Chicago, the year it closed. Many pastors wouldn’t even let Quigley recruiters speak about Quigley to the 8th grade boys. The trouble isn’t that potential priests don’t want to be celibate, it’s that a priestly vocation never enters their minds as a possibility.

 

[francesco920]

This is a good point. For nearly 1000 years celibacy was absolutely NO problem for vocations, and it most certainly is not the problem now. If you look at orthodox groups and dioceses, vocations are plentiful.

Celibacy is NOT the problem; heterodoxy is!

I find it amazing that people want to correct the vocations crisis, which was caused by modernism and heterodoxy, with more heterodoxy!

Thank God our Pope is sane! Let us pray that our shepherds never bow to the demands of the modernists! They have already done more than enough to harm Holy Mother Church. It would be INSANE to even consider any of their proposals!

 

[thegame]

I’m Catholic - read the following w/out prejudice - you don’t have to agree - just making a point
The primary intellectual arguement against any religion, in the Western world (going on in every college right now), is that they become obsolete. They were very necessary in their time, but man must evolve forward. (Pagans > Christiants/Islam > Bahai’i > Secularism,etc.)

Man evolves past their dogma. Jews couldn’t eat pork, not because pork is evil, but because if not cooked correclty you’d die at that time in history. There are one hundred more examples, so I’ll spare you.

I think Vatican II, Pope John Paull II embracing of Jews and Muslims, etc. have proved that Christianity hasn’t changed one bit, but certainly evolves intellectually, and thus will not become obsolete.

To make my point further, Islam’s ridiculous practice of not analyzing the Quran historically, or not subjecting it to criticism (in their communities) OR their subjugation of woman OR admitting “Allah” was the Pagan moon God (hence the moon atop every Mosque) will kill it - not protect it.

We have some practices that belong to another era, before we understood human beings psycologically or physically the way we do now. Our theology and philosophy is supperior - I agree. Thats why holding onto the few obsolete notions - almost all involve sex - is so harmful. They make people right catholicism off as a thing of the past (hence the vocation of Priesthood not seeming relevant.)

 

[thegame]

Don’t these statements bother anyone:

To a 15 yr. old boy: “masterbation is a mortal sin.”

“Catholics don’t believe in birth control” ; then why don’t Catholic families have at least 8-10 children over 20 years?

I’m not saying do away with celibacy, I’m saying three things:

1. Our strength is theologically being superior, unless sex is involved - then we have to say things that don’t make medical sense or are totally absurd.
2. Don’t change the vows of Priesthood, but create a program for Deacons, who can have families, and can also support them! The only Deacons we have now are older, retired, or could never support their families.
3. If you don’t think the sex abuse scandal is in any way related to our current practices, you aren’t looking at the facts. It is damaging the church more every day in the U.S.
   You can lose the money - if the credibility goes - its over (and w/ many, it has, and it hurts me greatly to write that.)

 

[ChrisWRIT]

? I’m not a Biblical scholar by a long shot, but isn’t that very Protestant of you to pluck a sentence or two out of context, to make a point?

I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that it is out of context. I certainly admit the possibility that I could be incorrect, and if so, I would appreciate being shown my error. I have tried to keep all of my Bible study (from the NAB) based on Catholic rules of interpretation. Here is how I understand it:

While the entire passage does discuss marriage, it also discusses divorce and celibacy.

When Jesus pointed out that divorce in the case of any lawful marriage results in adultery, his disciples stated that; “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

The entire passage seems to be stating that 1) lawful marriages that are ended with divorce result in adultery, & 2) that some are incapable of marriage, going on to describe who. 1 Cor. 7 agrees with the possibility and advisability of celibacy also, when Paul states that it is better to remain single, as married people’s attentions are divided between the Lord and their families.

Nowhere does the Bible say that celibacy is mandatory, which is why it is only a disciplinary matter, which could be discussed & may change someday.

Don’t these statements bother anyone:

To a 15 yr. old boy: “masterbation is a mortal sin.”

“Catholics don’t believe in birth control” ; then why don’t Catholic families have at least 8-10 children over 20 years?

I’m sure they bother many people, but I’m not one of them. (Although the 2nd statement would be more accurately stated as “The Catholic Church teaches against birth control”, rather than just “Catholics”.)

The Church teaches that methods of artificial contraception (including the pill, barriers, sterilization, etc., & even masturbation) are wrong because they are deliberate violations of the design God built into the human race (“natural law”), which is why all are considered mortal sin.

Sadly enough, barring the Catholic families out there that DO have 8-10 children, the vast majority of Catholics (in America, at least), either don’t know or don’t care what the Church teaches about the subject, and go ahead and use it anyway. But that doesn’t mean that the Church is wrong, but that Catholics who violate Church teaching are.

The issue of contraception isn’t one of “needing to get with the times” any more than women’s ordination is. Neither Church doctrine, nor the Bible itself is dependent on consensus.

You can lose the money - if the credibility goes - its over (and w/ many, it has, and it hurts me greatly to write that.)

As I stated before, priestly celibacy could be changed, but matters of Church doctrine (including unpopular stances like anti-contraception) cannot, in part for that very reason.

Chris

 

[josethekke]

In eastern churches celibacy for priests is not mandatory as st.paul says in1.cori.7" a mandoes well not to marry’’ but those who lacks self control may allwed to marry to prevent satan’s temptations ‘‘it is better to marry than to burn with passion’’