Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider ask for prayer and fasting

[Fauken]

many of the objections, particularly by Burke and Schneider, present the idea of married priests as some sort of affront to Catholic doctrine… which is absurd

No they don’t. Not to Catholic doctrine. Just to the traditions of the Latin rite. If it’s wrong to impose Latin traditions on Eastern Catholics, why should it be okay for Eastern traditions to be imposed on the Latin rite?

 

[godisgood77]

No they don’t. Not to Catholic doctrine. Just to the traditions of the Latin rite. If it’s wrong to impose Latin traditions on Eastern Catholics, why should it be okay for Eastern traditions to be imposed on the Latin rite?

I don’t think anyone is imposing anything on anyone. The Church is looking for the best avenues to serve the faithful in the Amazon. Some in the Church are presenting that as some sort affront to tradition.

By the way, the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church has had married priests before… it is practice, nothing more… St Peter was married…

 

[Fauken]

By the way, the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church has had married priests before… it is practice, nothing more… St Peter was married…

2000 years ago. Tradition isn’t antiquarianism.

 

[Emeraldlady]

godisgood77:

many of the objections, particularly by Burke and Schneider, present the idea of married priests as some sort of affront to Catholic doctrine… which is absurd

No they don’t. Not to Catholic doctrine. Just to the traditions of the Latin rite. If it’s wrong to impose Latin traditions on Eastern Catholics, why should it be okay for Eastern traditions to be imposed on the Latin rite?

But it’s not come about through whim. It’s because in Brazil as in Australia (both of which are around the same land mass as the US, have loads of isolated and outlying parishes that simply have no Priests. Some parts of Brazil just simply have no Catholic contact at all. Some get a communion service once a month. But no other regular Sacraments. I personally believe that God never meant anyone on His earth to be deprived like thise when there is a legitimate solution.

 

[Fauken]

But it’s not come about through whim. It’s because in Brazil as in Australia (both of which are around the same land mass as the US, have loads of isolated and outlying parishes that simply have no Priests. Some parts of Brazil just simply have no Catholic contact at all. Some get a communion service once a month. But no other regular Sacraments. I personally believe that God never meant anyone on His earth from being deprived when there is a legitimate solution.

What makes their situation so unbelievable that they’re incapable of producing men who can be celibate? It sounds patronizing.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

But it’s not come about through whim. It’s because in Brazil as in Australia (both of which are around the same land mass as the US, have loads of isolated and outlying parishes that simply have no Priests. Some parts of Brazil just simply have no Catholic contact at all. Some get a communion service once a month. But no other regular Sacraments. I personally believe that God never meant anyone on His earth from being deprived when there is a legitimate solution.

What makes their situation so unbelievable that they’re incapable of producing men who can be celibate? It sounds patronizing.

Speaking in relation to the Australian situation, it’s not ideal for a young Priest to be living in such isolation without some sort of spiritual support that a community of Priests provide. It leads to loneliness, temptation and depression not to have that support. Scripture says that in the early Church communities were tasked with choosing older men with wisdom, moral virtue and spiritual virtue to be their elders and teachers. That seems very ideal to me.

 

[AlbMagno]

So “tradition” doesn’t count if it is from the Apostles’ time? I thought a great part of APOSTOLIC tradition comes from patristics. Is this antiquarianism?

 

[Fauken]

Speaking in relation to the Australian situation, it’s not ideal for a young Priest to be living in such isolation without some sort of spiritual support that a community of Priests provide. It leads to loneliness, temptation and depression not to have that support. Scripture says that in the early Church communities were tasked with choosing older men with wisdom, moral virtue and spiritual virtue to be their elders and teachers. That seems very ideal to me.

I’m not talking about a community of priests. A community of priests is fine. You can have a community of priests and celibacy too.

So “tradition” doesn’t count if it is from the Apostles’ time? I thought a great part of APOSTOLIC tradition comes from patristics. Is this antiquarianism?

Antiquarianism is doing things for the sake of their being old. The argument of “Priests should be allowed to be married because St. Peter was” is antiquarian.

It’s not a matter of “can”. Of course they can. But why?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Speaking in relation to the Australian situation, it’s not ideal for a young Priest to be living in such isolation without some sort of spiritual support that a community of Priests provide. It leads to loneliness, temptation and depression not to have that support. Scripture says that in the early Church communities were tasked with choosing older men with wisdom, moral virtue and spiritual virtue to be their elders and teachers. That seems very ideal to me.

I’m not talking about a community of priests. A community of priests is fine. You can have a community of priests and celibacy too.

Don’t you think that if it was that simple to put whole ‘communities of Priests’ out into these many isolated outlying parishes that it would have been done already?

 

[Fauken]

Don’t you think that if it was that simple to put whole ‘communities of Priests’ out into these many isolated outlying parishes that it would have been done already?

I didn’t say it was easy. I said it was fine.

 

[godisgood77]

2000 years ago. Tradition isn’t antiquarianism.

I think you are misinformed … there is evidence of married priests in the Church for the first 1000 years … and, as stated before, there are married Catholic priests today.

I’m a bit surprised that this issue is given pride of place to Burke’s and Schneider’s objections to the upcoming synod.

I pray the good Lord’s will is done …

 

[godisgood77]

What makes their situation so unbelievable that they’re incapable of producing men who can be celibate?

I’m not sure that this is the issue… I think they are questioning the need to be celibate… at lease that is my question…

 

[AlbMagno]

Because it would be easier to ordain indigenous persons already non-celibate, at least at the beginning.

Also, I can apply the same logic to classic celibacy (I am not against it but since you mentioned it…). Why should a priest be celibate? Isn’t it old? Who determines what is old and what isn’t? Don’t other christian denominations do fine with married priests/ministers? Is it good for the man to be alone? Isn’t the family just as important as the gift of celibacy in the eyes of God?

As I’ve said, I am not against celibacy, but the rethoric you use can be used both ways.

 

[Fauken]

I think you are misinformed … there is evidence of married priests in the Church for the first 1000 years …

So, because it’s old.

and, as stated before, there are married Catholic priests today.

And because it’s possible. Those are the arguments you want to put forward for getting rid of the requirement for priestly celibacy? Because it’s old and they can?

I’m a bit surprised that this issue is given pride of place to Burke’s and Schneider’s objections to the upcoming synod.

Why shouldn’t it be, given the attention they’ve given to other very concerning parts of this Synod?

I pray the good Lord’s will is done …

Agreed.

I don’t understand what your bottom line is. Is it that the Latin tradition is so necessary that it’s worth leaving all those people permanently without the Sacraments? Is this part of Trumpism that believes that some countries are just worthless sh-tholes?

Oh please don’t bring Trump into this or imply that upholding priestly celibacy is to treat the Amazonian people as second-class citizens. We’ve managed to bring the Gospel to many, many, many cultures throughout the long history of the Church without requiring ordaining married men to the priesthood. Did the Church need married priests when they were being crucified by the Japanese? How about when they were sent off to evangelize the Native Americans? Or getting thrown into Gulags in Russia? Were there problems with finding men willing to be ordained in those countries? Sure, but they were found and the churches in those countries are alive today. Isn’t watering down what we cherish (such as celibacy), what we’ve brought to every culture before them insulting? “It’s too hard to give you our 100%, something which has been considered normal for a thousand years and managed to be brought to many peoples other than yours.” I think that is treating them like second-class citizens.

I’m not sure that this is the issue… I think they are questioning the need to be celibate… at lease that is my question…

Considering the working document calls to “discard rigid positions that do not take sufficient account of the concrete life of people and the pastoral reality, in order to meet the real needs of indigenous peoples and cultures”, I’d say yes.

 

[Fauken]

Why should a priest be celibate? Isn’t it old? Who determines what is old and what isn’t? Don’t other christian denominations do fine with married priests/ministers? Is it good for the man to be alone? Isn’t the family just as important as the gift of celibacy in the eyes of God?

Sure, celibacy is old. But the argument for celibacy isn’t because “it’s old”. Celibacy is superior in that it is a sacrifice of the good that is marriage for the greater good of a life completely dedicated to God (see CCC 2349), something which St. Paul noted. This is not to say that a married couple cannot be completely dedicated to God, but a married couple has a responsibility towards each other and their children. A celibate priest has the Church as his spouse (and doesn’t have to worry about waking her up at 3 in the morning when having to run to the hospital for administering the Last Rites) and sole concern. They ideally shouldn’t be alone, which is why, as mentioned earlier, it is good for them to be in a community of priests, where they can help each other live out their vocations as priests. Men are not necessarily alone because they’re celibate: wives aren’t the only companions for priests. Celibacy is progression, it is growth. It is something that grew out of the married priesthood (good) into something better.

The argument can’t really be used both ways. A celibate priesthood is something great that grew from something good. The arguments for relaxing the requirement are basically arguing taking a step back.

 

[jack63]

No they don’t. Not to Catholic doctrine. Just to the traditions of the Latin rite. If it’s wrong to impose Latin traditions on Eastern Catholics, why should it be okay for Eastern traditions to be imposed on the Latin rite?

I see this very very differently. With 1 Timothy 3 married priests and their ministry go way beyond just the “tradition” of either the Latin or Eastern Rite.

a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God? (1 Timothy 3:2-5)

 

[Fauken]

I see this very very differently. With 1 Timothy 3 married priests and their ministry go way beyond just the “tradition” of either the Latin or Eastern Rite.

Haydock’s Commentary:

" Ver. 2. A bishop (the same name then comprehended priest) to be blameless, as to life and conversation, adorned, (says S. Chrys.) with all virtues. See also S. Jerom in his letter to Oceanus. — The [1] husband of one wife. It does not signify, that to be a bishop or priest he must be a married man; nor that he must be a man who has but one wife at a time; but that he must be a man who has never been married but once, or to one wife: because to be married more than once, was looked upon as a mark of too great an inclination to sensual pleasures. It is true, at that time a man might be chosen to be a bishop or priest whose wife was living, but from that time he was to live with her as with a sister. This S. Jerom testifies as to the discipline of the Latin Church. Wi. — The meaning is not that every bishop should have a wife, (for S. Paul himself had none) but that no one should be admitted to the holy orders of bishop, priest, or deacon, who had been married more than once. Ch. — Sober. [2] The Greek rather signifies watchful. — Chaste. [3] There is nothing for this in the Greek text at present, unless in some few MSS. Perhaps the ancient Latin interpreter added it, as being signified and comprehended in the other words. — Teacher: a doctor, as the Greek signifies. Wi."

 

[godisgood77]

And because it’s possible. Those are the arguments you want to put forward for getting rid of the requirement for priestly celibacy? Because it’s old and they can?

No, not because it’s possible or because it’s old, but because the Church, in her wisdom, has the authority to make a decision on what is best. The fact that the Church in her tradition has had married priests when she saw fit in the past only strengthens the argument that, if needed again, can do so.

 

[CRV]

Married Priests Will Always Be an Exception - an article from 2010, Interview With Theologian (Father Laurent Touze) on the Foundations of Celibacy.

"But in the first centuries there were many married priests, including the Apostles?

Father Touze: Studies have convincingly shown that this must be questioned: Celibacy of all clerics wasn’t lived, but from the moment of inclusion in the priestly order these men had to live continence with the permission of their wives, because this was a commitment of the couple."

(I mention this in addition to married Anglican priests converting to the Catholic Faith, which we all know is permitted.)

Will Married Priests Solve the Vocations Problem? The Dangers and Challenges of Changing the Church’s Discipline By Father Dwight Longenecker 2014.

"So is the answer to allow married men to be ordained?
Not necessarily. Having married priests would certainly help the vocations crisis, and married men might relate better to married people. However, believing that married priests are the answer assumes that they are mature, happily married men. With a bit of reflection we can all see that marriage in and of itself does not automatically make a man mature, self giving and happy.

In my experience of married clergy in both the Evangelical Churches and the Anglican Church marriage is not the magic bullet for the lack of vocations. Having married clergy will not necessarily solve the vocations crisis, nor will it necessarily improve the priestly ministry, and it certainly won’t be the solution to the priestly sex abuse problem."

He goes on to mention common problems some men have regardless of whether they are married or not, and then raises the question of financial support of married clergy and their families.

 

[Fauken]

No, not because it’s possible or because it’s old, but because the Church, in her wisdom, has the authority to make a decision on what is best.

The Synod though apparently has no authority to be making a decision for the Church.

fact that the Church in her tradition has had married priests when she saw fit in the past only strengthens the argument that, if needed again, can do so.

It has never been a question of can. It’s a question of should.