Bishopes oppose celebacy rule

[ddarko]

ddarko

Your argument from history can only take you so far btw. You can’t just keep bringing up church fathers for every thing. You should also look at matters logically. Right now you are ignoring the logic and trying to solely rely on what someone else did in the past. Not very good strategy by any means.

I am trying to be logical. The Church is enduring the gravest crisis in centuries with the decline of those who are entering the priesthood. Now that the world needs evangelizing more than ever, there are few priests left to do it. Those who are left are living out a martyrdom of burdens. If it were not for revival of the married diaconate, I think many more priests would have left Orders long ago or collapsed from overwork and discouragement. In our diocese we have five seminarians studying for the priesthood and forty married laymen studying for the diaconate. This is relief of some sort, but it only indicates how many more vocations for the priesthood might be out there for married laymen.

Give me some better logic on your side than just the tradition of the Church for celibacy that was never formalized at all until the Spanish Council of Elvira in 295 A.D.

Aaah, and I keep showing you how your claim that it will solve the vocational crisis is groundless.

I give you the following reasons to show that its groundless

1. There is a decline in number of people entering marriage
2. The issue is not with the celibacy but with the distorted western view of sex and marriage
3. I back (2) with the fact that in many other non-western countries which hold to traditional sexual values, there is no vocational crisis. In fact, to the contrary, there is an abundance of priests.
4. Given the problem is with the distorted view of sex, married priests are a temporary solution. It’s only a matter of time before marriage goes completely out of the window and even married priesthood becomes threatened.
5. Evangelizing can be done by anyone. I try to do it almost every time I meet a non-catholic and I am not a priest. I am sure you do too. So if someone wants to evangelize, they can just as easily be a lay theologian or something of that nature.
6. Is it not true that to sacrifice the marital good (since you clearly admit that its a Good) for the sake of God is a greater sacrifice? Should not that vocation be respected as such? To say that we now have to allow married priests is a slap in the face since it seems to say, celibacy is impossible. But the reason you and many others like you feel this way is because you are fed with the distorted view of sex day in and day out.

So don’t be mistaken, I am not appealing to a claim that celibacy was how it was since the church fathers. You might have mistaken me for Abu. If you noticed, I have not been quoting any church fathers or the council of Elviron. Rather to the contrary, I am claiming that your grounds to change the celibacy rules is … well… groundless. There is no logical reason to do so.

So I think the burden is on you to provide me with

*1) The vocational crisis is solely because of celibacy and not because of the distorted view of sex

*2) Married priests can ***in general ***be just as effective as a celibate priest

I believe that *1) is impossible since there are counter examples to suggest you are wrong in other non-western countries and nearly everyone knows the state of sexual morality of the West.

As for 2), I believe there is a good psychological case against you that you will have to overcome. One cannot put ones own family second while putting every-other family first. That will result in marital disharmony. There are some who can do it BUT it is in general impossible. So in the end, a celibate priest can** in general*** serve his flock better than a married priest.

But anyway, I await to see if you can present a better logical case than what you have presented so far or a defense to my objections against your case.

God Bless

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Abu

For this reason the Church, from apostolic times, has wished to conserve the gift of perpetual continence of the clergy and choose the candidates for Holy Orders from among the celibate faithful (cf 2 Thes 2:15; 1 Cor 7:5; 9:5; 1 Tim 3:2-12; 5:9; Tit 1:6-8).(188)” [My underlining].

Well now, I had to run and look up these passages to see if they fortified your case. They do nothing of the sort.

2 Thes 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

How does this relate to priestly celibacy? What oral statement or letter is he referring to that requires continence of a married man after being ordained a priest? Where’s the beef?

1 Cor 7:5 Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.

What has this to do with priestly celibacy?

I Cor. 9:5 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 Cephas?

Again, this passage indicates the right of apostles to be married and still companions with their wives. What has it to do with celibacy or continence?

1 Tim 3:12

*Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,
3
not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.
4
He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity;
5
for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?
6
He should not be a recent convert, so that he may not become conceited and thus incur the devil’s punishment. 3
7
He must also have a good reputation among outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, the devil’s trap.
8
4 Similarly, deacons must be dignified, not deceitful, not addicted to drink, not greedy for sordid gain,
9
holding fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
10
Moreover, they should be tested first; then, if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
11
Women, 5 similarly, should be dignified, not slanderers, but temperate and faithful in everything.
12
Deacons may be married only once and must manage their children and their households well.
*
What has all this to do with celibacy or continence?

I Timothy 5:9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years old, married only once,

Again, what’s the point?

Titus I: 6-8 For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.

Again, how does this fortify the case for celibacy or continence?

You and ddarko keep saying the same thing but you never provide the evidence for apostolic authority. Neither do your sources. This has become a tedious discussion for me, all the more so because your arguments are, I’m sorry to say, entirely without merit.

But I yield the field, suspecting that you have already given your best shots. There was no apostolic authority for the Latin Mass, either, though doubtless many believe there is. Try and find it anywhere but in the tradition of the Church from the time of Constantine on, the same period during which celibacy took hold. If one tradition can be dropped, so can another, so long as they are not rooted in the infallible word of God and the Scriptures. As for tradition alone, unless the pope invokes his authority *ex cathedra *to uphold celibacy, which I don’t think any pope has, then there is no reason to fear a married priest any more than there is reason to fear a married deacon.

This is my last post in this thread. If you wish to carry on a private discussion, you know the ropes.

God bless us all … we sure do need it!

 

[Light1111]

Question: this pertains to the topic at hand, particular regarding those who pointed out that if these Bishops are successful, it will make it appear as though Catholic doctrine is man-made and is just a convention of man’s.

A friend of mine teaches at a Catholic school and regularly engages in lively debate with the Catholic Priest who teaches catechism there. She asks him all sorts of questions that plague her mind regarding Catholic doctrine.

Once she asked him why priests may not marry? When other sects of Christianity permit it? Does this have to do with Jesus?

He said that the reason Catholic Priests may not marry, is a financial one, not a religious one.

He said that if Catholic Priests married, it would pose a financial strain on the Church, for they would be responsible for seeing to it that his wife and his children were properly cared for (as the salary of a Priest is typically low). Also, he said, if a Priest were to divorce (I was surprised he even brought this up, since divorce is forbidden), then the Church would be responsible for paying alimony and child support. He said that the Church has avoided these financial pitfalls that would result from Priests marrying, by forbidding it.

Was he incorrect? Did he make up those answers? Or is he telling the truth? I see nothing wrong with his explanation, just wondering if he got it from his higher-up or surmised it himself.

 

[In_Spiration]

Can the celebacy rule be changed?

Yes.

How could that happen?

If the Church is persuaded to loosen its emphasis on “God” and “spirituality,” or possibly if enough people tell the Pope that it’s really hard for some dudes.

This is hardly a philosophical debate.

 

[ddarko]

Abu

For this reason the Church, from apostolic times, has wished to conserve the gift of perpetual continence of the clergy and choose the candidates for Holy Orders from among the celibate faithful (cf 2 Thes 2:15; 1 Cor 7:5; 9:5; 1 Tim 3:2-12; 5:9; Tit 1:6-8).(188)” [My underlining].

Well now, I had to run and look up these passages to see if they fortified your case. They do nothing of the sort.

2 Thes 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

How does this relate to priestly celibacy? What oral statement or letter is he referring to that requires continence of a married man after being ordained a priest? Where’s the beef?

1 Cor 7:5 Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.

What has this to do with priestly celibacy?

I Cor. 9:5 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 Cephas?

Again, this passage indicates the right of apostles to be married and still companions with their wives. What has it to do with celibacy or continence?

1 Tim 3:12

*Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,
3
not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.
4
He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity;
5
for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?
6
He should not be a recent convert, so that he may not become conceited and thus incur the devil’s punishment. 3
7
He must also have a good reputation among outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, the devil’s trap.
8
4 Similarly, deacons must be dignified, not deceitful, not addicted to drink, not greedy for sordid gain,
9
holding fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
10
Moreover, they should be tested first; then, if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
11
Women, 5 similarly, should be dignified, not slanderers, but temperate and faithful in everything.
12
Deacons may be married only once and must manage their children and their households well.
*
What has all this to do with celibacy or continence?

I Timothy 5:9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years old, married only once,

Again, what’s the point?

Titus I: 6-8 For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.

Again, how does this fortify the case for celibacy or continence?

You and ddarko keep saying the same thing but you never provide the evidence for apostolic authority. Neither do your sources. This has become a tedious discussion for me, all the more so because your arguments are, I’m sorry to say, entirely without merit.

But I yield the field, suspecting that you have already given your best shots. There was no apostolic authority for the Latin Mass, either, though doubtless many believe there is. Try and find it anywhere but in the tradition of the Church from the time of Constantine on, the same period during which celibacy took hold. If one tradition can be dropped, so can another, so long as they are not rooted in the infallible word of God and the Scriptures. As for tradition alone, unless the pope invokes his authority *ex cathedra *to uphold celibacy, which I don’t think any pope has, then there is no reason to fear a married priest any more than there is reason to fear a married deacon.

This is my last post in this thread. If you wish to carry on a private discussion, you know the ropes.

God bless us all … we sure do need it!

Ok, this is kind of sad. I presented a logical case why your position is absurd. Yet you argue about other people’s quotes.

Me and Abu are not saying the same thing. I am not arguing from history. I am arguing from what is logical and how what you say is logically absurd and void. I presented a detailed case against your position in my last post.

For crying out loud, present a logical case. Right now as it stands, you haven’t made one.

God Bless

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Post #49: Fr. John Echert of EWTN on 10/Nov/03
“What Cochini shows through patristic sources and conciliar documentation is that from the beginning of the Church, although married men could be priests, they were required to vow to celibacy before ordination, meaning they intended to live a life of continence.”
The Apostolic norm shown by the scholars below was a life of continence for all priests because of the vow of celibacy before ordination.

Post #33: “In 1969 Christian Cocchini, S.J. completed his doctoral thesis at the Institut Catholique, on the history of clerical celibacy. The president of the examiners who approved his dissertation was Cardinal Danielou. Cocchini’s mastery of the sources from the New Testament to the seventh century is unequalled.

This is what he found:
“From the beginnings of the Church, and throughout the Greco-Latin world, a single rule prevailed: Priests were celibate; or else, if they had married before ordination, they and their wives promised to live together thereafter without the use of the marriage. This rule was an Apostolic norm; it was proclaimed and practiced by the Apostles; and that norm in turn was founded upon the example of our Lord Himself.

“Clerics were often chosen from among married older men. After ordination they were required to abstain from conjugal intercourse. In effect then, they were not married. Qui habent uxores, tamquam non habentes sint. “Let those who are married live as if they do not have wives”. Pope Leo the Great in 458 AD borrowed those words of Saint Paul in order to describe the celibacy of the clergy.” (I Cor. 7:29). [Letter from Pope Leo to Rusticus, Bishop of Narbonne]. The Origin Of Priestly Celibacy, by Hugh Ballantyne, June 2003]

For Early Church Tradition the most important studies are: Fr Roman Cholij, Clerical Celibacy in East and West (Herefordshire: Fowler Wright Books, 1988); Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000).

So you have found opinion but no actual Church Documents stating that the celibate priesthoood is the Apostolic norm and the married priesthood (which dates from the beginning also) is not an Apostolic norm.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Question: this pertains to the topic at hand, particular regarding those who pointed out that if these Bishops are successful, it will make it appear as though Catholic doctrine is man-made and is just a convention of man’s.

A friend of mine teaches at a Catholic school and regularly engages in lively debate with the Catholic Priest who teaches catechism there. She asks him all sorts of questions that plague her mind regarding Catholic doctrine.

Once she asked him why priests may not marry? When other sects of Christianity permit it? Does this have to do with Jesus?

He said that the reason Catholic Priests may not marry, is a financial one, not a religious one.

He said that if Catholic Priests married, it would pose a financial strain on the Church, for they would be responsible for seeing to it that his wife and his children were properly cared for (as the salary of a Priest is typically low). Also, he said, if a Priest were to divorce (I was surprised he even brought this up, since divorce is forbidden), then the Church would be responsible for paying alimony and child support. He said that the Church has avoided these financial pitfalls that would result from Priests marrying, by forbidding it.

Was he incorrect? Did he make up those answers? Or is he telling the truth? I see nothing wrong with his explanation, just wondering if he got it from his higher-up or surmised it himself.

Priests can not marry becuase it the reception of Holy Orders is an impediment to marriage, this is theological.

Married men can be ordained to the priesthood but one of the reasons against that can be see to be financial as priests are not really paid what their protestant counter parts are paid.

 

[ddarko]

Question: this pertains to the topic at hand, particular regarding those who pointed out that if these Bishops are successful, it will make it appear as though Catholic doctrine is man-made and is just a convention of man’s.

A friend of mine teaches at a Catholic school and regularly engages in lively debate with the Catholic Priest who teaches catechism there. She asks him all sorts of questions that plague her mind regarding Catholic doctrine.

Once she asked him why priests may not marry? When other sects of Christianity permit it? Does this have to do with Jesus?

He said that the reason Catholic Priests may not marry, is a financial one, not a religious one.

He said that if Catholic Priests married, it would pose a financial strain on the Church, for they would be responsible for seeing to it that his wife and his children were properly cared for (as the salary of a Priest is typically low). Also, he said, if a Priest were to divorce (I was surprised he even brought this up, since divorce is forbidden), then the Church would be responsible for paying alimony and child support. He said that the Church has avoided these financial pitfalls that would result from Priests marrying, by forbidding it.

Was he incorrect? Did he make up those answers? Or is he telling the truth? I see nothing wrong with his explanation, just wondering if he got it from his higher-up or surmised it himself.

He is incorrect. Celibacy is a way of devoting one self to God completely by sacrificing the marital good. Your priest seems to not have completely understood what his vocation is about.

At the same time, marriage requires a certain amount of dedication and commitment to ones own family. Compared to a married man, a celibate priest can therefore in general better serve his flock because the entire congregation is his family.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

So you have found opinion but no actual Church Documents stating that the celibate priesthoood is the Apostolic norm and the married priesthood (which dates from the beginning also) is not an Apostolic norm.

I don’t think the argument is about what ‘‘was’’ the norm. I think you need to look at what makes more logical sense.

God Bless

 

[Abu]

Charlemagne II
Well now, I had to run and look up these passages to see if they fortified your case. They do nothing of the sort…
your arguments are, I’m sorry to say, entirely without merit.

As we used to say “Tell that to the marines.”
William James says many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.

Facing Reality
In Post #80 we see that “The CDF and Pope John Paul II, and all the Councils, Synods and Popes below regard priestly continence as from Apostolic times with priestly candidates chosen from the celibate faithful.”
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_31011994_directory_en.html
Congregation For The Clergy, Directory On The Ministry And Life Of Priests, 1994
(Approved by Pope John Paul II)
#59: “The example is Christ, who in going against what could be considered the dominant culture of his time, freely chose to live celibacy. In following him the disciples left “everything” to fulfil the mission entrusted to them (Lk 18:28-30).

“For this reason the Church, from apostolic times, has wished to conserve the gift of perpetual continence of the clergy and choose the candidates for Holy Orders from among the celibate faithful (cf 2 Thes 2:15; 1 Cor 7:5; 9:5; 1 Tim 3:2-12; 5:9; Tit 1:6-8).(188)” [My underlining].

This direct quote from the CDF, approved by Pope John Paul II, could not be clearer and they have used the Gospel passages given to express the facts so stated. So the objector claims that the Holy See has been wrong in using these passages from apostolic times to support the whole question of continence for the priesthood being better than marriage.

ByzCath
So you have found opinion but no actual Church Documents stating that the celibate priesthood is the Apostolic norm and the married priesthood (which dates from the beginning also) is not an Apostolic norm.

We quote Tradition from the Holy See, and the facts discovered by those who have taken the time and trouble to get them. [See the clear statement above in the *Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests].
In post #80, it was stated that “The persecution suffered by the early Church during the first three centuries made it difficult for it to write down most of its laws.5” [From Alfons M. Cardinal Stickler].

Post #76: What Cochini shows through patristic sources and conciliar documentation is that from the beginning of the Church, although married men could be priests, they were required to vow to celibacy before ordination, meaning they intended to live a life of continence.
The Apostolic norm shown by the scholars referred to was a life of continence for all priests, married (mostly) or unmarried, because of the vow of celibacy before ordination.

 

[Light1111]

Thank you to ddarko and ByzCath for answering my question! Curious, isn’t it, how that priest came to that conclusion? Certainly he attended the seminary? Hmm. Maybe he was just expounding on a belief he holds personally, or he’s one who wishes the edict to be reversed, so spoke in final terms instead of voicing an opinion.