Get Rid of the Celibacy Requirement

  • Thread starter Thread starter CampionTheChampion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ConstantLearner said:
I already said mine didn’t apply if a married priest converts to Roman Catholicism. I’ve no objection to that or to married deacons. But without a predominantly unmarried priesthood, the Church is going to lose much of its focus and spirituality.
Click to expand...
What say you about the Eastern Catholic Churches? Do they lack in focus and spirituality?
 
Last edited:
Oh my gosh if I hear another person say it is about celibacy and not homosexuality then I don’t know what I will do. ~81% of the abuse was boys and at that, the majority was post-pubescent boys. You do not become homosexual by living with men. It is an unnatural desire that needs to be rooted out of the priesthood to stop (almost entirely) the sexual abuse.
 
Mintaka said:
All married bishops were always obliged to observe perpetual continence,
Click to expand...
How then do you explain that Roman Catholic Bishop Jón Arason had children while he was a bishop ?
 
Last edited:
PopePiusXIII said:
Oh my gosh if I hear another person say it is about celibacy and not homosexuality then I don’t know what I will do. ~81% of the abuse was boys and at that, the majority was post-pubescent boys. You do not become homosexual by living with men. It is an unnatural desire that needs to be rooted out of the priesthood to stop (almost entirely) the sexual abuse.
Click to expand...
Some of the priests were hetetosexual and abused girls. They and the homosexuals who abused, would have abused anyway.

It’s NOT a celibacy problem by any means; it’s NOT a homosexual problem by any means; it’s a child abuse problem, of both persuasions.
 
Last edited:
So married men are not capable of adequately attending to their professions? You can’t mean that. A profession can be just as demanding as a religious vocation.
 
I agree.

As mentioned above, where will the example behaviour shown for the celibate laity - i,e. the unmarried who cannot find spouses, those with SSA and ex-spouses who had to go through a civil divorce (due to the other spouse) but their sacramental marriages cannot be annulled, by the church - hence they may not remarry and must remain celibate.

Without doubt, it will be a lot more difficult for such persons if priests were married, as there will be no example of celibate behaviour being offered, by the Church, within the priestly vocation.

With priests practicing celibacy within their ‘vocation’, it assists such lay members to cope with their unwanted, respective, celibate states…
 
Part of the issue according to Richard Sipe is half of priests do not keep the vow of celibacy. The church cannot replace a flesh and blood companion/offspring. Priests are asked to live ascetic lives like the desert fathers. Not everyone has this charism. It leads to all sorts of psychological problems.
 
PopePiusXIII said:
Oh my gosh if I hear another person say it is about celibacy and not homosexuality then I don’t know what I will do. ~81% of the abuse was boys and at that, the majority was post-pubescent boys. You do not become homosexual by living with men. It is an unnatural desire that needs to be rooted out of the priesthood to stop (almost entirely) the sexual abuse.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t have to BE about celibacy for the possibility of allowing married priests to be useful. Sometimes part of the solution comes from approaching an issue from more than one direction.

Say every priest with SSA is removed from service. Definitely a number of excellent priests will also be removed from service as no doubt there are good priest with SSA who practice celibacy. Ok, so homosexuals all gone, problem fixed! But now there is a priest shortage and no more men with SSA who feel called can answer the call, so the numbers go down and there are fewer priests.

Allowing married men to serve does open up the pool of men who may be called to the priestly vocation. If God sees fit, he can call them, if he doesn’t like the idea of married priests, he won’t call them. Vocation is a calling.

It’s possible, of course depending on God’s will, that He might be fine with married priests serving the Church. If he isn’t, then no problem, there won’t be vocations among married priests.

Lack of lay oversight is NOT responsible for the sex abuse, however it may be part of the solution to apply more lay oversight than was previously used. That doesn’t mean lay people are being blamed for the problem, but they MAY be part of the solution.

If part of the reason that priests who abused were held onto and reassigned was because there were not enough priests to replace them, then perhaps having more priests, even married priests, might reduce the temptation to “give them one more chance”.

It’s not a magic cure all, but it is possible that it could be part of the solution, and it’s worth being considered. There is even precedent for it as the Church has had married priests before and apparently it did not bring the Church tumbling down to a ruinous fall.
 
The Catholic Church is wealthy enough to provide for a married priest and his family. The amount of money the church has paid in sex abuse lawsuits is astronomical. Maybe the church could sacrifice some causes and let other organizations help in those areas.
 
pepipop said:
Without doubt, it will be a lot more difficult for such persons if priests were married, as there will be no example of celibate behaviour being offered, by the Church, within the priestly vocation.

With priests practicing celibacy within their ‘vocation’, it assists such lay members to cope with their unwanted, respective, celibate states…
Click to expand...
Allowing married men to be priests is not the same as REQUIRING them to be married. I don’t think people are suggesting that no celibate or unmarried men will be allowed in the priesthood. It’s throwing the net wider, not eliminating those who are called to celibacy.
 
Same difference - the vocation of being called to the priesthood would be ‘diluted’, in the eyes of celibate laity which for the most part is not their chosen state…
 
Shakuhachi said:
So married men are not capable of adequately attending to their professions? You can’t mean that. A profession can be just as demanding as a religious vocation.
Click to expand...
At times, of course. On the whole, no.
 
What do you mean on the whole, no. That seems to be only your opinion.
 
glencor63 said:
Part of the issue according to Richard Sipe is half of priests do not keep the vow of celibacy. The church cannot replace a flesh and blood companion/offspring. Priests are asked to live ascetic lives like the desert fathers. Not everyone has this charism. It leads to all sorts of psychological problems.
Click to expand...
if they don’t have the charism, they aren’t meant to be priests.
 
Last edited:
Shakuhachi said:
What do you mean on the whole, no. That seems to be only your opinion.
Click to expand...
Of course it’s my opinion. This is a DB in which opinions are expressed. However, a lot of other posters agree that the priesthood should remain unmarried. I am, by far, not the only one. It’s about 50/50.
 
Well, I think you don’t have much to worry about. I doubt it will change though I think a change would be for the better.
 
Well, whichever way it goes, I’m not worried about it. It’s not my problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top