Bishopes oppose celebacy rule

[Charlemagne_II]

The priority commitment of the Catholic Church in our times should be to re-evangelize the world. The Church, instead of expanding, is shrinking. Vocations are just not there to reply to the many demands made upon our own Church, never mind evangelizing the whole world.

Why not think outside the box?

Why not allow married priests as well as single priests for the secular priesthood and single priests only for the monastic and missionary orders? A two-tiered system seems to make the most sense. I believe Pope Benedict could solve the problem of the scarcity of priests with one stroke of his pen.

It would take some getting used to, certainly. But once in place for a while, I think Catholics would come to see it as a boon to the Church, rather than a thorn in her side.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The priority commitment of the Catholic Church in our times should be to re-evangelize the world. The Church, instead of expanding, is shrinking. Vocations are just not there to reply to the many demands made upon our own Church, never mind evangelizing the whole world.

Why not think outside the box?

Why not allow married priests as well as single priests for the secular priesthood and single priests only for the monastic and missionary orders? A two-tiered system seems to make the most sense. I believe Pope Benedict could solve the problem of the scarcity of priests with one stroke of his pen.

It would take some getting used to, certainly. But once in place for a while, I think Catholics would come to see it as a boon to the Church, rather than a thorn in her side.

Opening the secular priesthood to married candidates will not fix any percieved “vocation crisis”.

There are many issues that need to be addressed before such a thing could happen, such as pay, insurance, schooling, formation, just to name a few.

 

[JM3]

The priority commitment of the Catholic Church in our times should be to re-evangelize the world. The Church, instead of expanding, is shrinking. Vocations are just not there to reply to the many demands made upon our own Church, never mind evangelizing the whole world.

Why not think outside the box?

Why not allow married priests as well as single priests for the secular priesthood and single priests only for the monastic and missionary orders? A two-tiered system seems to make the most sense. I believe Pope Benedict could solve the problem of the scarcity of priests with one stroke of his pen.

It would take some getting used to, certainly. But once in place for a while, I think Catholics would come to see it as a boon to the Church, rather than a thorn in her side.

This is nothing new. From ‘The Roots of the Reformation’ by Karl Adam:

The shepherds and teachers who might have directed and deepened the stream of faith were lacking. The higher clergy were mostly noblemen who had entered the priesthood from material rather than spiritual motives. Bishoprics, prelacies and abbacies had for long been the preserve of the nobility. At the outbreak of the Reformation eighteen bishoprics and archbishoprics in Germany were occupied by the sons of princes. Proof of proficiency in the tourney was an absolutely requisite qualification for most canonries. It is evident that prelates so immersed in worldliness and pleasure had neither the ability nor the desire to break the Bread of Life to the people.
Over against these prelates, “God’s Junkers”, we see the lower clergy. They seldom had benefices of their own and were compelled either to carry out the duties of a benefice for a pittance from some member of the higher clergy, or earn their living by helping to serve Mass and doing odd jobs about the church. Their economic position was therefore extremely precarious. Their theological training was no better. Excepting the handful of the clergy who were educated at the universities, most of them contented themselves with a modest smattering of religion, Latin and liturgy. Their morals were not much better than their theological knowledge. One could hardly expect a higher moral standard from them than the example set by their superiors. Documentary evidence indicates that there was amongst them much brutality, drunkenness, gambling, avarice, simony and superstition. To secure a living for themselves they exacted almost insupportable fees for the slightest exercise of their priesthood, even from the poor and destitute. The charge for the administration of the Last Sacraments was so high that Extreme Unction was called “the Sacrament of the rich”. Concubinage was so general that at the Councils of Constance and Basel the Emperor Sigismund proposed the abolition of the law of celibacy.

 

[ddarko]

"Three Roman Catholic bishops, reacting to damaging sexual abuse scandals in their ranks, have urged the church to consider easing its celibacy requirement for priests. Bishop Jozef de Kesel of Bruges, who replaced a bishop who quit in April after admitting to having abused his nephew, said last weekend, “Persons who find celibacy impossible should also have the opportunity to become priests.” Patrick Hoogmartens, bishop of Hasselt, and Bishop Johan Bonny of Antwerp seconded him on Monday. The chairman of the Interdiocesan Pastoral Council, a group of lay people working in the church, added its voice on Wednesday. “The time is now really ripe, certainly in Western Europe, for priests to be able to choose a celibate life or not,” its chairman, Josian Caproens, said in a statement. "

nytimes.com/2010/09/23/world/europe/23briefs-Belgium.html?_r=1&ref=religion_and_belief

Can the celebacy rule be changed? How could that happen?

Best,
Leela

Woahhhh, so these three “Bishops” think the cure for pedophilia is marriage lol? What is seriously wrong with these bishops?

No, the sacrament for the priesthood is an equivalent of the marriage sacrament. To say a married priest is like saying a married bachelor. It’s illogical. The only possibility is of having lay people who can do certain priestly duties BUT they will/can not be priests.

Bishops like these give church leaders a bad name. Seriously, … “reacting to damaging sexual abuse scandals in their ranks, have urged the church to consider easing its celibacy requirement for priests” I am still in shock at this line. Whats next? Ask the church to legalize pedophilia?

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

The priority commitment of the Catholic Church in our times should be to re-evangelize the world. The Church, instead of expanding, is shrinking. Vocations are just not there to reply to the many demands made upon our own Church, never mind evangelizing the whole world.

Why not think outside the box?

Why not allow married priests as well as single priests for the secular priesthood and single priests only for the monastic and missionary orders? A two-tiered system seems to make the most sense. I believe Pope Benedict could solve the problem of the scarcity of priests with one stroke of his pen.

It would take some getting used to, certainly. But once in place for a while, I think Catholics would come to see it as a boon to the Church, rather than a thorn in her side.

You are assuming that the reason for celibacy is being unable to marry in this case. To the contrary, most young people really aren’t interested in marriage as well. They just have a distorted view of sex and want the freedom to engage in sex (may it be one or many).

So the reason for the drop in vocation numbers is not a need to marry but rather a distorted cultural view of sex. People in the past and in poor countries have a desire to have a family just as much as the ones in the rich countries. Similarly, priests of the past had a need to marry just as much as those of today. Yet, there were large number of priests. So the only difference however is the western cultural view of sex. That I think is the root cause of the problems with celibacy as well as marriage.

Now if the Vatican ever decides to solve the problem of less vocation numbers by relaxing the celibacy rule, that would be a very sinful mistake. By doing such a thing, the Vatican would have just given in to the distorted sexual view of culture and may have affirmed (or given some credibility to) the distorted view of sex as true.

Therefore, I don’t think there is good enough reason to ever abolish the celibacy of priesthood.

God Bless

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No, the sacrament for the priesthood is an equivalent of the marriage sacrament.

You are wrong. No where in the theology of the priesthood is anything like this expressed.

The Latin Church already has married clergy (both deacons and priests) and the Eastern Catholic Churches ordain married men to the priesthood.

 

[Leela]

Woahhhh, so these three “Bishops” think the cure for pedophilia is marriage lol? What is seriously wrong with these bishops? )

I’m not sure but think the idea is that if the Church allowed priests to marry, then more people with normal sexual tendencies would choose to become priests. At it stands now, men who have abnormal sexual tendencies such as homosexuals and pedophiles (and teen-o-philes) are disproportionately represented in the priesthood, because the priesthood is sometimes viewed as a respectable way of escaping having to deal with such unwanted or sexual urges since celibacy is the rule. For example, there is a much greater incidence of people with SSA in the priesthood than the general population presumably because a celibate lifestyle is the obey respectable way for a Catholic homosexual to live.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’m not sure but think the idea is that if the Church allowed priests to marry

The Church can never allow priests to marry. Ordination is an impediment to the Sacrament of Marriage. The Church has never allowed this and that is dogma.

What the Church can allow and has allowed is for the ordination of married men to the priesthood. A very different thing.

 

[Abu]

Charlemagne II
seems to me that celibacy is a later convention which the Fathers wisely adopted for reasons particular to their time, rather than a dogma that we all have to believe in forever and ever.

It is neither a dogma nor even a doctrine. Refer Post #15: “While the fact of priestly celibacy is a discipline, it is also more than a discipline because it is an Apostolic norm from the choices made by Jesus, and Sacred Scripture attests to its roots.”
Refer Post #33: “While not a doctrine, an Apostolic “norm” means; “rule” means a prescribed guide for conduct; “prescribe” means issue commands or orders for.” So if “convention” is chosen it means rules, including commands and prohibitions and these are based on the Apostolic norm.

Fr. John Echert of EWTN on 10/Nov/03 had this to say:
“Let me recommend the very scholarly and thorough book on this topic, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Christian Cochini, S.J.

“He examines the question of when the tradition of priestly celibacy began in the Latin Church, and he is able to trace it back to its origins with the apostles. He examines evidence about the marital status of every known bishop, priest or deacon of the period and gives an exhaustive list of married clerics from apostolic times until the end of the seventh century, a list that includes not only the Western Church, but the East and also the Nestorian, Novatian and Pelagian Church. Then Cochini examines the relevant Church documents for the same period, including council and synod documents, papal letters, ecclesial and even secular legislation as it relates to the problem. He also provides a survey of scholarly literature on the topic. This is the definitive scholarly statement on the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Church East and West. 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. He provides extensive documentation, a bibliography and an index.”

ByzCath
Opening the secular priesthood to married candidates will not fix any perceived “vocation crisis”.
There are many issues that need to be addressed before such a thing could happen, such as pay, insurance, schooling, formation, just to name a few.

Indeed it won’t fix any vocations crisis. Further, here is an example from the East.
**A Bishop’s Experience with Married Priests **
VATICAN CITY, OCT 22, 1999 (ZENIT).- At the Synod of Bishops for Europe Bishop Virgil Bercea of Oradea Mare of the Rumanians, is young, joyful, strong in faith, polite, candid, clear-thinking and certain. Like other countries of Eastern Europe, Rumania has Catholic priests of the Eastern rite who are married.
“Celibacy is not a problem for us, it is a choice,” Bishop Bercea said. “I think the debate that has taken place in the West is characterized by ignorance on the subject. In our Church, 20% of the priests of the Greek-Catholic rite are married, while the others, of the Latin rite, are celibate. In my diocese, I have married priests with children and, in general, they have more problems than the others, as those who are celibate can dedicate themselves full-time to the mission, while those who are married must give part of their time and concern to guide and support a family. I understand them and help them, but it must be admitted that family life is a huge commitment.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ByzCath

*Opening the secular priesthood to married candidates will not fix any percieved “vocation crisis”.

There are many issues that need to be addressed before such a thing could happen, such as pay, insurance, schooling, formation, just to name a few. *

Yes, the same issues that have to be settled for celibate priests. The celibate priests in the United States alone have cost the Church billions of dollars in lawsuits. Did you know the Church had that much money? Certainly enough to have paid a married clergy.

Do you underestimate the spirituality of married men in the priesthood. Then do you also underestimate the spirituality of married deacons, not to mention married laity, some of whom I think serve the Church with the greatest dedication and labor.

You know very well we have married clergy in the Church right now. These are married converts who were clergy in their former denomination. I know at least two who have turned into superb priests.

Is it ironic that we let married converts into the priesthood but forbid our own priests to marry?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Abu

*VATICAN CITY, OCT 22, 1999 (ZENIT).- At the Synod of Bishops for Europe Bishop Virgil Bercea of Oradea Mare of the Rumanians, is young, joyful, strong in faith, polite, candid, clear-thinking and certain. Like other countries of Eastern Europe, Rumania has Catholic priests of the Eastern rite who are married.
“Celibacy is not a problem for us, it is a choice,” Bishop Bercea said. “I think the debate that has taken place in the West is characterized by ignorance on the subject. In our Church, 20% of the priests of the Greek-Catholic rite are married, while the others, of the Latin rite, are celibate. In my diocese, I have married priests with children and, in general, they have more problems than the others, as those who are celibate can dedicate themselves full-time to the mission, while those who are married must give part of their time and concern to guide and support a family. I understand them and help them, but it must be admitted that family life is a huge commitment.” *

This is not really a repudiation of a married priesthood. These remarks would apply as well to married deacons. I don’t think the bishop mentioned wants to eliminate the permanent diaconate because it is a difficult life. In fact, if there were more married deacons and more married priests, the workload might be spread more evenly so that the demands would not be as great as they are right now with a paucity of priests to go around.

Does anybody here know what the American priests think about opening the priesthood up to a married clergy?

I wonder if homosexual priests would rather not see the Church allow priests to marry.

 

[ddarko]

You are wrong. No where in the theology of the priesthood is anything like this expressed.

The Latin Church already has married clergy (both deacons and priests) and the Eastern Catholic Churches ordain married men to the priesthood.

Yeaaaa about that… just because your church does it, DOES NOT make it right. Your church allows divorce, and remain silent about contraception.

THOSE ARE BOTH WRONG and SINFUL.

In the same way, you can have a protestant claiming all sorts of stuff that they allow.

So lets not present the ''Latin Church already has married clergy" card shall we

That being said, about celibacy, if your church has that as your tradition, then its fine. A latin rite priest is defined that way. He is simply not a Roman Catholic priest. I have no problem with that and I see no logical reason to deny that. Similarly, you have no grounds to object against the Roman Catholic priests because they are simply defined that way. For us to adopt your priesthood destroys the Roman Catholic priesthood in its definition.

But, if your church did give birth to your priestly tradition because of the distorted view of sex similar to that of our culture today, then it is SINFUL.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I’m not sure but think the idea is that if the Church allowed priests to marry, then more people with normal sexual tendencies would choose to become priests. At it stands now, men who have abnormal sexual tendencies such as homosexuals and pedophiles (and teen-o-philes) are disproportionately represented in the priesthood, because the priesthood is sometimes viewed as a respectable way of escaping having to deal with such unwanted or sexual urges since celibacy is the rule. For example, there is a much greater incidence of people with SSA in the priesthood than the general population presumably because a celibate lifestyle is the obey respectable way for a Catholic homosexual to live.

Actually this is the thing. I don’t think there are any statistics to prove that sex abuse is more common among priests than the lay people. What about the amount of kids who get abused in our school systems? At homes? In their families? I have no yet seen a reliable statistic that shows ‘‘there is a much greater incidence of people with SSA in the priesthood than the general population’’. I in-fact think that its just a false notion created by the media. Pedophilia is a general problem. Be it a priest or a lay person.

Your view is also not psychologically realistic. Under your view, someone who does not get ‘‘sex’’ is going to end up being a pedophile. This is once again the result of our sex obsessed distorted view of our culture today. It simply is not true.

So my point is that, there is a problem with the view on sex in our culture as a whole. To miss that and argue about allowing priests to marry is not going to help anything. On the contrary, it makes the problem worse because it gives some credibility to the distorted view of sex.

God Bless

 

[Holly3278]

"Three Roman Catholic bishops, reacting to damaging sexual abuse scandals in their ranks, have urged the church to consider easing its celibacy requirement for priests. Bishop Jozef de Kesel of Bruges, who replaced a bishop who quit in April after admitting to having abused his nephew, said last weekend, “Persons who find celibacy impossible should also have the opportunity to become priests.” Patrick Hoogmartens, bishop of Hasselt, and Bishop Johan Bonny of Antwerp seconded him on Monday. The chairman of the Interdiocesan Pastoral Council, a group of lay people working in the church, added its voice on Wednesday. “The time is now really ripe, certainly in Western Europe, for priests to be able to choose a celibate life or not,” its chairman, Josian Caproens, said in a statement. "

nytimes.com/2010/09/23/world/europe/23briefs-Belgium.html?_r=1&ref=religion_and_belief

Can the celebacy rule be changed? How could that happen?

Best,
Leela

Ah yes! The perfect kind of news item for the liberal New York Times.

 

[ddarko]

This is not really a repudiation of a married priesthood. These remarks would apply as well to married deacons. I don’t think the bishop mentioned wants to eliminate the permanent diaconate because it is a difficult life. In fact, if there were more married deacons and more married priests, the workload might be spread more evenly so that the demands would not be as great as they are right now with a paucity of priests to go around.

Does anybody here know what the American priests think about opening the priesthood up to a married clergy?

I wonder if homosexual priests would rather not see the Church allow priests to marry.

Hi,

I made an objection to your argument in post #45. I was wondering if you missed them since you did not reply .

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Yes, the same issues that have to be settled for celibate priests. The celibate priests in the United States alone have cost the Church billions of dollars in lawsuits. Did you know the Church had that much money? Certainly enough to have paid a married clergy.

Once again, you seem to believe that getting married is going to reduce pedophilia. On the contrary, there is no such evidence in the field of psychology. What happens when a married priest abuses a kid? Now you have the burden of the financial system for married priests + the abuse money .

I am also curious, if you do believe that if people do not have sex, they become pedophiles, then under your view, society will have to bring in a law to force sex between two people regularly Also, what do you propose we do about homosexuals? So it seems to me like your view is rather infeasible and at times absurd.

Do you underestimate the spirituality of married men in the priesthood. Then do you also underestimate the spirituality of married deacons, not to mention married laity, some of whom I think serve the Church with the greatest dedication and labor.

Well every person is called to serve the church in their own way. But to serve the church as a Roman Catholic Priest, you have to give up certain things. That is celibacy. Anything less means they aren’t serving the church properly in the way they chose.

I followed your debate on the homosexuality and natural law. If we take an analogy from that issue, if I asked ‘‘are you underestimating the love between two men by not calling it marriage?’’ what would you reply? I think the same applies here to your question about underestimating the spirituality of married RC priests

You know very well we have married clergy in the Church right now. These are married converts who were clergy in their former denomination. I know at least two who have turned into superb priests.

Is it ironic that we let married converts into the priesthood but forbid our own priests to marry?

No. The ones we accept are not Roman Catholic Priests. We accept them for who they are. The Roman Catholic Priesthood is its own sacrament. Its just like marriage. You can’t redefine it. Similarly, to redefine the priesthood of the Roman Catholic church would simply destroy it and make in to something its not. You are obviously welcome to create a new position in the RC church for married people but you just can’t call it priesthood So I don’t think there is irony, only logical consistency.

I made an objection to your argument earlier in post #45 as well. I was wondering if you missed them since you did not reply . Or its possible I missed your reply post …

God Bless

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yeaaaa about that… just because your church does it, DOES NOT make it right. Your church allows divorce, and remain silent about contraception.

THOSE ARE BOTH WRONG and SINFUL.

First, my Church is Catholic.

In the same way, you can have a protestant claiming all sorts of stuff that they allow.

So lets not present the ''Latin Church already has married clergy" card shall we

That being said, about celibacy, if your church has that as your tradition, then its fine. A latin rite priest is defined that way. He is simply not a Roman Catholic priest. I have no problem with that and I see no logical reason to deny that. Similarly, you have no grounds to object against the Roman Catholic priests because they are simply defined that way. For us to adopt your priesthood destroys the Roman Catholic priesthood in its definition.

But, if your church did give birth to your priestly tradition because of the distorted view of sex similar to that of our culture today, then it is SINFUL.

God Bless

There are already married Roman Catholic priests. They are converts who were ministers in their “churches” that Rome has allowed to be ordained Catholic priests.

I am not for a change in the Latin Catholic Churches discipline of a celibate clergy. So I do not think you have an argument with me.

But a discipline is not part of the theology of the priesthood, it is not a part of the definition of priest. It can not be when the Eastern Catholic Churches do not have this discipline.

But as I said, just becuase the Eastern Catholic Churches do it I do not think the Latin Church should.

 

[ddarko]

First, my Church is Catholic.

Yes. But it is not Roman Catholic. Also was I mistaken about your church’s view of contraception and divorce? I apologize if I did because to my knowledge, the Eastern church’s do allow them.

There are already married Roman Catholic priests. They are converts who were ministers in their “churches” that Rome has allowed to be ordained Catholic priests.

You are correct. But they are not Roman Catholic priests. They are not considered the same as RC priests unless I am very very mistaken.

I am not for a change in the Latin Catholic Churches discipline of a celibate clergy. So I do not think you have an argument with me.

I agree. I only started this discussion since I thought you might be saying ‘‘we have married priests so RC can have married priests as well’’.

But a discipline is not part of the theology of the priesthood, it is not a part of the definition of priest. It can not be when the Eastern Catholic Churches do not have this discipline.

Once again, it may not be part of the definition and theology of an Eastern Catholic priest. But it is part of the definition of the RC. We cannot simply get rid of the idea of celibate priests just to accommodate a cultural distorted view of sex. The Roman Catholic priesthood has celibacy as part of how its defined. To get rid of it makes it in to something it is not.

In other words, to make my position more clearer, there is a name given for someone who decides to consecrate ones life to the lord and live a celibate life. That vocation is defined as a Roman Catholic priest. We cannot simply say such a position does not exist. As I said to Charlemagne II, one is perfectly ok in having a new position for married people who want to serve the lord but to call it Roman Catholic priesthood destroys what it already stands for.

So unless you have theological proof that celibacy is sinful (which I don’t think anyone can claim), such a role is acceptable and has to be held in higher position than a married priest. Who can best serve the church? One who is married to his spouse or one who considers the entire church as his sole family? I am sure a married man can attempt to live life as the latter but it would result in quiet a bit of marital discord. I am also not sure how theologically correct it would be for a married man to live that way.

But as I said, just becuase the Eastern Catholic Churches do it I do not think the Latin Church should.

Yes, I completely agree with you.

God Bless

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ddarko

Replying to post #45.

Now if the Vatican ever decides to solve the problem of less vocation numbers by relaxing the celibacy rule, that would be a very sinful mistake.

I think by your logic it would be not only sinful, but heretical. But the Church cannot be heretical.

Was the Church sinful and/or heretical when bishops were allowed by the Vatican to ordain men who were converts and previously clergymen in other denominations such as the Lutherans and the Anglicans?

cathnewsusa.com/article.aspx?aeid=19603

 

[ddarko]

ddarko

Replying to post #45.

Now if the Vatican ever decides to solve the problem of less vocation numbers by relaxing the celibacy rule, that would be a very sinful mistake.

I think by your logic it would be not only sinful, but heretical. But the Church cannot be heretical.

Was the Church sinful and/or heretical when bishops were allowed by the Vatican to ordain men who were converts and previously clergymen in other denominations such as the Lutherans and the Anglicans?

cathnewsusa.com/article.aspx?aeid=19603

Ok maybe you misunderstood me. If the person comes from a tradition that holds ‘‘X priesthood’’ where X = anglican, lutheran, orthodox etc are ok to be married, then that is ok. I have no objection to that. Keep in mind that this is an exception.

But the core of my argument is that to change the celibacy rule the way you suggested it is sinful since it acknowledges a distorted view of sex as true. In that sense it could be considered heretical and which is why the church does not do it .

My argument is this, your case against celibacy becomes NULL since it hinges upon a thought that allowing people to marry will increase vocation numbers and reduce sex abuse. Both are incorrect and results of modern distorted view of sex and marriage. So to the contrary, celibacy comes from a deeper understanding of what marriage and sex is about. I do not know if you have read the following article on catholic online

catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

So my question to you, should we get rid of celibate priesthood which is a greater union with God for the sake of satisfying a distorted cultural appetite for sex?

Also, in the process of answering post 45, you seemed to have missed my other post (#56) made in reply to some of your other objections

God Bless