B
Brendan
Guest
True. he had a mother-in-law. But there is no indication that his wife was still living at the time he was called by Christ.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
Nor is there any reason to believe she had died - in fact, there is no reason to believe that the status or whereabouts of the wives of all the other apostles (!) were regarded as important enough in that culture to include in the Gospel narratives written decades after the events took place.True. he had a mother-in-law. But there is no indication that his wife was still living at the time he was called by Christ.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Indeed. Saint Clement of Alexandria relates that she died a martyr’s death in Rome…with her husband. And the Church in Rome cherishes her memory through the centuries.Nor is there any reason to believe she had died - in fact, there is no reason to believe that the status or whereabouts of the wives of all the other apostles (!) were regarded as important enough in that culture to include in the Gospel narratives written decades after the events took place.
It is, of course, not just the wives of the apostles but members of The Twelve themselves and various others who obviously had central roles in the apostolic Church and the sub-apostolic Church who simply fade from view because, of course, they were not the focus on these early Christians…they were a part of them.
Since the early Christian communities were not populated by modern historians and biographers, we know what the members of those community deemed important to convey, which is distinct from what moderns might wish to know. The ancients are silent on many things that we would find significant or informative, living in cultures and eras very different from theirs.
Y
Yeoman
Guest
With all due respect to Karl Keating, that’s his view (Peter was a widower) and not his view alone, but it’s not universally accepted. It may in fact be the better view, however, for a lot of reasons.Not when he was an apostle of the Lord and later the first Pope, wholeheartedly in service of Christ and His Church.
Did Peter Have a Wife? Catholic Answers
God Bless
Thank you for reading
Josh
There’s some tradition that his wife and a daughter accompanied him and may have passed in Rome. Clement of Alexandra claimed that Peter witnessed the martyrdom of his wife and there was a tradition, although I know little about it, that Peter’s daughter obtained sainthood.
Again, that can’t be definitely stated, but we cannot state with certainty that he was not married. I agree that the better evidence would be that he was widowed, but we don’t know the story with certainty.
Having a spouse tied to a mission of that type would be a severe burden for the spouse, to say the least. Perhaps that’s the best evidence that she had died before he was called.
Y
Yeoman
Guest
As usual, I see I’m covering ground that’s already been covered. My apologies as my follow up added nothing to the conversation at all.
Y
Yeoman
Guest
In an effort to contribute, and after pondering this, I’ll add the following.As usual, I see I’m covering ground that’s already been covered. My apologies as my follow up added nothing to the conversation at all.
Before I do, let me know that I’m a very traditional Catholic. Not a Rad Trad, but I’m definitely on the traditional end. If I could put the alter rail back in my church, I would. And if they offered a Latin Mass here, I’d definitely go from time to time. And I’m glad that a selection of Cardinals has written their Dubia.
And I also feel that, in this day and age in which the history of the early Church is so easily obtainable, the truth of our Faith is beyond reasonable question.
With that background then, I’ll add this.
I think we ought to rethink the prohibition on married Priests in the Latin Rite.
We’ve been discussing St. Peter, of course, and I’ll be frank that while I think Karl Keating has done a huge favor to the Faith by starting Catholic Answers, I don’t find his argument regarding Peter’s spouse convincing. I really don’t see why we’d expect the writers of the Gospels to write about Peter’s wife and child(ren). Writing was a difficult and expensive burden and we know from the writers of the Gospels themselves that they omitted even many miracles from their writings, as they say they omitted them. If they were omitting miracles, why would they expend the resources necessary to detail family members unless necessary?
And I’m not prepared to discount Clement of Alexandria when he says he saw Peter’s wife martyred. Maybe he was mistaken, but it’d be assuming a lot for me to assume so. Admittedly that’s not much to go on, but it’s not so little that we can just discount it.
Carrying on, we also know that at least some early Bishops of the Church were married. Paul, in writing to Timothy, noted:
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity”
If Paul was of the opinion that Bishops should be good husbands and not drink too much, and govern his children well, this tells us that a married man could be a bishop and could drink (but not to excess) and could have children, and still be qualified to be Bishops.
And of course the prohibition on married priests exists only in the Latin Rite, although I believe that the Eastern Rite and the Orthodox do not allow married men to be Bishops.
Okay, here’s my question then.
I can think of some good current reasons why Priests should not be married. The life being a Priest requires, the pressure of the modern world, the need to move every few years, and the economic burden to the Parish, but I can think of some reasons why the opposite is true.
Principal amongst those is that it seems to me that times have changed so that its less likely, at least in the West, that manly young men heed their call in the sex saturated world in which we live today. In a culture in which virginity of any kind is abhorred its tough not to be distracted when young by this. Allowing married Priests would operate against this, I think, and allow a more manly class to be attracted to their vocation.
I also think that many hear that call later on, after they have been married. After a few years enduring the delusion of the satisfactory natures of careers, and the like, as they age, that old call comes back. But what then? Even if they have a good and faithful Catholic wife, and even, let’s say, if the children are grown and gone, they may not then answer the old call.
And on that, in an era in which we discourage the very young from entering the seminary, as we once did, and we allow for the ordination of priests who are middle aged or even a little older than that, what would be the harm in allow married Priests to some degree? That is, why shouldn’t the Latin Rite allow men to be ordained, let’s say, whose wives are past their childbearing years when their children are grown and gone? Indeed, wouldn’t that be an inspiration to those younger people as they considered their careers?
For that matter, why not encourage biritual Priests from the Eastern Rite to serve in Latin Rite churches if there’s enough of them? The Eastern Rite is pretty small in North American and Western Europe and t hey only need so many Priests. If they had a surplus of interested men (and I don’t know that they do) I’d be for the Latin Rite taking them in service, even though of course they’d remain Easter Rite Priests.
Hmmm. . . maybe I’ll cross post this up in vocations.
T
TCEL
Guest
I think the article * Children of the Reformation* is an interesting facet of the conversation to consider. It’s an article written by a Lutheran outlining the historical framework of the Protestant view on contraception. He theorizes that the confluence of several factors guided Protestants into their acceptance of contraception, including a divine mandate to procreate, the rejection of lifelong celibacy, and the elevation of marriage as the highest calling. Now as Catholics we don’t necessarily have all the same starting assumptions as Luther had, so it isn’t a slippery slope argument. However, it is something to consider. I can’t link to the article, but google the title, and the searcher should be directed to Touchstone Magazine. I stumbled across this article many years ago, and it helped me immensely in so many ways.In an effort to contribute, and after pondering this, I’ll add the following.
Before I do, let me know that I’m a very traditional Catholic. Not a Rad Trad, but I’m definitely on the traditional end. If I could put the alter rail back in my church, I would. And if they offered a Latin Mass here, I’d definitely go from time to time. And I’m glad that a selection of Cardinals has written their Dubia.
And I also feel that, in this day and age in which the history of the early Church is so easily obtainable, the truth of our Faith is beyond reasonable question.
With that background then, I’ll add this.
I think we ought to rethink the prohibition on married Priests in the Latin Rite.
We’ve been discussing St. Peter, of course, and I’ll be frank that while I think Karl Keating has done a huge favor to the Faith by starting Catholic Answers, I don’t find his argument regarding Peter’s spouse convincing. I really don’t see why we’d expect the writers of the Gospels to write about Peter’s wife and child(ren). Writing was a difficult and expensive burden and we know from the writers of the Gospels themselves that they omitted even many miracles from their writings, as they say they omitted them. If they were omitting miracles, why would they expend the resources necessary to detail family members unless necessary?
And I’m not prepared to discount Clement of Alexandria when he says he saw Peter’s wife martyred. Maybe he was mistaken, but it’d be assuming a lot for me to assume so. Admittedly that’s not much to go on, but it’s not so little that we can just discount it.
Carrying on, we also know that at least some early Bishops of the Church were married. Paul, in writing to Timothy, noted:
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity”
If Paul was of the opinion that Bishops should be good husbands and not drink too much, and govern his children well, this tells us that a married man could be a bishop and could drink (but not to excess) and could have children, and still be qualified to be Bishops.
And of course the prohibition on married priests exists only in the Latin Rite, although I believe that the Eastern Rite and the Orthodox do not allow married men to be Bishops.
Okay, here’s my question then.
I can think of some good current reasons why Priests should not be married. The life being a Priest requires, the pressure of the modern world, the need to move every few years, and the economic burden to the Parish, but I can think of some reasons why the opposite is true.
Principal amongst those is that it seems to me that times have changed so that its less likely, at least in the West, that manly young men heed their call in the sex saturated world in which we live today. In a culture in which virginity of any kind is abhorred its tough not to be distracted when young by this. Allowing married Priests would operate against this, I think, and allow a more manly class to be attracted to their vocation.
I also think that many hear that call later on, after they have been married. After a few years enduring the delusion of the satisfactory natures of careers, and the like, as they age, that old call comes back. But what then? Even if they have a good and faithful Catholic wife, and even, let’s say, if the children are grown and gone, they may not then answer the old call.
And on that, in an era in which we discourage the very young from entering the seminary, as we once did, and we allow for the ordination of priests who are middle aged or even a little older than that, what would be the harm in allow married Priests to some degree? That is, why shouldn’t the Latin Rite allow men to be ordained, let’s say, whose wives are past their childbearing years when their children are grown and gone? Indeed, wouldn’t that be an inspiration to those younger people as they considered their careers?
For that matter, why not encourage biritual Priests from the Eastern Rite to serve in Latin Rite churches if there’s enough of them? The Eastern Rite is pretty small in North American and Western Europe and t hey only need so many Priests. If they had a surplus of interested men (and I don’t know that they do) I’d be for the Latin Rite taking them in service, even though of course they’d remain Easter Rite Priests.
Hmmm. . . maybe I’ll cross post this up in vocations.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Even Orthodox traditions I’ve seen regarding Saint Peter being married up to his martyrdom hold that he was sexually continent during this period. Saint Clement of Alexandria’s witness states that the Apostles refrained from relations with wives they would have had, and early western tradition affirms this and held that married clerics were supposed to refrain from relations with their wives after ordination.
X
Xystus
Guest
I just came across this thread and have not read it all so sorry if this has been brought up before but…This is not the way to get more priests, having married priests is not only wrong theologically, but also practically speaking. You cannot take a vow of poverty if you have a family you must try and support. You cannot be married to the Church if your already married. Are the saints and Popes who were before us now suddenly all wrong?
God Bless
Thank you for reading
Josh
Where in the world do you get that having married priests is theologically wrong? The Eastern Catholics have married priests and there are Married Latin priests. Married Latin priests are not the norm but theologically wrong? How is it the Church as a whole has married priests if it is so wrong?
Also, I don’t think diocesan priests take vows of poverty.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
I do fear that in our response to the priest crisis we will sacrifice quality for quantity. I don’t think the answer for one vocation is to tax another one. Especially with the battles the church is losing in even defining marriage in the first place.
Scary times.
Scary times.
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
Which could be done with the stroke of the papal pen. Dr. Peters has argued for a long time that 277 also binds married deacons to perpetual continence, although the Church has stated otherwise. I don’t believe married ministers from other traditions who have been ordained as Catholic priests are being held to marital continence either. Probably best to clarify all this.Dr. Edward Peters notes that, in considering a married priesthood, Canon 277 needs to be addressed.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, it might be addressed, and settled, with the stroke of a pen, but Dr. Peter’s does not expect that the issue will be so addressed. It could be. On the other hand, simply eliminating Canon 277 might also evoke another Vatican storm among canonists, theologians, and bishops.Which could be done with the stroke of the papal pen. Dr. Peters has argued for a long time that 277 also binds married deacons to perpetual continence, although the Church has stated otherwise. I don’t believe married ministers from other traditions who have been ordained as Catholic priests are being held to marital continence either. Probably best to clarify all this.
Fr. Longenecker’s commentary on the pro’s and cons of a marries priesthood is also worth reading.
J
JimG
Guest
Here is a column in which Dr. Peters addresses the issue in somewhat more detail:
canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/five-points-regarding-a-married-roman-priesthood/
canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/five-points-regarding-a-married-roman-priesthood/
A
AFerri48
Guest
I have no problem with priests being able to marry. I feel that it will eventually become standard practice.
G
GEddie
Guest
You’ve got it wrong.I have no problem with priests being able to marry. I feel that it will eventually become standard practice.
While married men may well be normatively ordained, ordained priests will not be allowed to “get married.”
Which is why I believe such a change would fix nothing in the short term. For a generation, it may make matters worse, as men currently in formation would leave to “find a wife.” Others would defer vocational formation in order to do the same.
ICXC NIKA
J
JimG
Guest
A good point. Allowing married men to be ordained priests is one thing. Allowing priests to marry is something else entirely. While married men might be allowed ordination, it’s unlikely that ordained men will be allowed to marry.You’ve got it wrong.
While married men may well be normatively ordained, ordained priests will not be allowed to “get married.”
Which is why I believe such a change would fix nothing in the short term. For a generation, it may make matters worse, as men currently in formation would leave to “find a wife.” Others would defer vocational formation in order to do the same.
ICXC NIKA
Y
Yeoman
Guest
The short and long terms turn out to be shorter than we suppose, particularly in an institution like the Church for which the long term is very long indeed.You’ve got it wrong.
While married men may well be normatively ordained, ordained priests will not be allowed to “get married.”
Which is why I believe such a change would fix nothing in the short term. For a generation, it may make matters worse, as men currently in formation would leave to “find a wife.” Others would defer vocational formation in order to do the same.
ICXC NIKA
G
GEddie
Guest
All the more reason not to embrace a “long term” change for the sake of doing it.The short and long terms turn out to be shorter than we suppose, particularly in an institution like the Church for which the long term is very long indeed.
ICXC NIKA
- Status
- Not open for further replies.