How bad would Rome let the situation get in the US, before it allows married Priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was thinking about this, and I thought that, letting married men to be priests might be the answer after all. Why’s that? Well, while thinking, I thought of how the early Church was, especially in the Apostolic Age and the first century. Parishes then were really house-churches; the clergy was mostly taken from the community. Training was done in the community setting itself. Many of those who were in training had jobs and even families; they were tied to the community. Now, married men ordained would have to be trained in the parish level; no way can this be done in the seminary without forcing them to leave their jobs (some might be able to handle a day job and then attend night classes in a seminary, but for most in these times it might be difficult). These people would then be closely tied more to the community. Early Christian communities flourished and thrived because the clergy was familiar with the community, and so worked closely with it. I thought about those things, and it struck me that the solution might just be there, after all. Please note this is just my opinion; as a Catholic, we still abide by the Pope’s decision, and if what he says is final, then we have to obey. But if there’s an off-chance someone might point these things to him, and he sees merit in them, then we might have to wait and see where it will lead us. I thought that getting people back to the parish would have to mean direct involvement in it, and being part of the clergy would be the most direct way one could ever be.
 
I saw something on TV last night about San Salvador.

There are so few priests and so many parishioners that you will likely only see your priest two or three times a year.

His visit will be very brief because he has to rush away to get to his next destination.

The villages are ministered to as best they can by seminarians (who obviously don’t celebrate Mass). The seminarian on TV had to cover 28 villages.

Does that answer your question about how bad things can get before the rules are changed?
 
Let’s suppose our Holy Father changes the discipline and allows married priests. Now, what do you think the ankle-biters, the malcontents, the dissidents, the progressives, the pro-birth controllers, pro-homosexual, pro-girl priest crowd is going to say? “Thank you, Holy Father! God bless you!”

HA!

More likely, their response will be, "See, you changed that rule, why can’t we have (insert girl priests, birth control, abortion, sodomy, crack pipes, or any “it’s all about me” pet issue)? And why can’t we have it NOW NOW NOW!!

You give these people an inch and they’ll take a mile. I know, those issues are different from that of celibacy. But do you think the rabble rousers are going to make that distinction?

Married, homosexual and girl priests haven’t really helped the Anglicans, now have they?

Instead of agitating for a change in discipline that our present Holy Father is unlikely to initiate, how about getting down on your knees, preferably in front of the Blessed Sacrament, and begging Jesus to give us more priestly vocations? Celibate, male priestly vocations, of course.

I know. Prayer is a pretty radical suggestion. :banghead:
 
Dr. Bombay:
Let’s suppose our Holy Father changes the discipline and allows married priests. Now, what do you think the ankle-biters, the malcontents, the dissidents, the progressives, the pro-birth controllers, pro-homosexual, pro-girl priest crowd is going to say? “Thank you, Holy Father! God bless you!”
Click to expand...
Note that there’s a distinction between allowing married men to be priests, and allowing priests to marry. And there’s a distinction as well between all the others you’ve stated; celibacy is a discipline in the Latin rite. Those who favour birth control, homosexuality, women “priesthood” (I still would use the term priestesses since it boils down to that) go against doctrine. It’s more fixed (though doctrine isn’t dogma). Discipline is more flexible; it can be changed. Of course, these dissenters will try to crow, but the Holy See can always point to the East and show these dissenters that the East has not changed its position regarding their dissenting issues as well. Again, the dissenters lose.
 
40.png
Milliardo:
Note that there’s a distinction between allowing married men to be priests, and allowing priests to marry. And there’s a distinction as well between all the others you’ve stated; celibacy is a discipline in the Latin rite. Those who favour birth control, homosexuality, women “priesthood” (I still would use the term priestesses since it boils down to that) go against doctrine. It’s more fixed (though doctrine isn’t dogma). Discipline is more flexible; it can be changed. Of course, these dissenters will try to crow, but the Holy See can always point to the East and show these dissenters that the East has not changed its position regarding their dissenting issues as well. Again, the dissenters lose.
Click to expand...
Yes I understand the distinction.

However, the only lesson that the dissidents would learn from such a capitulation by the Holy Father is this:

If we agitate long enough and loudly enough, if we sow enough division and doubt among the faithful, WE WIN!

They don’t give a rat’s you-know-what about the Eastern Church. They don’t care about the history of celibacy or the distinction between doctrine and discipline.

They care about planting their flag, gaining a victory, incrementalism, the frog boiling slowly in water, etc. Bottom line, these people will not be satisfied until they have remade the Church in their own image, which ultimately means destroying her entirely because they can’t stand to have their deviant behavior declared immoral.
 
The answer to having more priests is simply better catachesis of the young along with cracking down on the homosexuals in the Seminaries.

Better Catechesis leads to grater holiness. Greater holiness leads to a life as a priest. The Bishops need to clean up the Seminaries. Some Seminaries in the East rely on the report of nonCatholic psychologists - not psychiarists. One of the known psycholigist that had the say on wheather a man entered the seminary was homosexual. This is reprehinsable. Normal young men dont want to be forced in with homosexuals.
 
Dr. Bombay:
Let’s suppose our Holy Father changes the discipline and allows married priests. Now, what do you think the ankle-biters, the malcontents, the dissidents, the progressives, the pro-birth controllers, pro-homosexual, pro-girl priest crowd is going to say? “Thank you, Holy Father! God bless you!”

HA!

More likely, their response will be, "See, you changed that rule, why can’t we have (insert girl priests, birth control, abortion, sodomy, crack pipes, or any “it’s all about me” pet issue)? And why can’t we have it NOW NOW NOW!!

You give these people an inch and they’ll take a mile. I know, those issues are different from that of celibacy. But do you think the rabble rousers are going to make that distinction?

Married, homosexual and girl priests haven’t really helped the Anglicans, now have they?

Instead of agitating for a change in discipline that our present Holy Father is unlikely to initiate, how about getting down on your knees, preferably in front of the Blessed Sacrament, and begging Jesus to give us more priestly vocations? Celibate, male priestly vocations, of course.

I know. Prayer is a pretty radical suggestion. :banghead:
Click to expand...
Try at least 15 min./day dedicated just to that topic.

BTW, the Nature of the Prieshood and why the Church can’t have Priestesses is an issue of DOGMA, in that it can’t be changed. The same with Homosexual marraige.

If the Holy Father were to ever to allow married men to become priests and to retain those men who married as priests (as was done in the early Church), the Church would have to undergo a period of serious catachesus, so that NORMAL faithful Catholics can understand and explain the difference between DOGMA/DOCTRINE and PRACTICE/DISCIPLINE.

Remember, the extremists are going to agitate NO MATTER WHAT. The problem is pastorally taking care of the faithful in places such as Central America where they don’t have nearly enough priests to take care of the faithful.

I believe that Pope Benedict XVI is up to the task of doing all of the above. But I do believe we’ll need to learn a ME saying, “The wind blows, the rooster crows, the dogs bark - The Caravan goes right on by!”

We have to learn to treat these radicals like the barking dogs in the saying. The Caravan has a destination, and we can’t let them derail us or effect how we get there. We absolutely can’t even consider them in our thinking. Otherwise, THEY WIN!

So If all else fails, “We’ve heard you… Would you allow someone else to speak?” and “Thank you for sharing… Could you please sit down?” And then Pope Benedict XVI should do whatever he believes needs to be done in those areas.

And, since it’s a matter of discipline, Pope Bendict XVI could allow MARRIED MEN in those impacted areas to become priests and just NEVER TELL US in the North what he’s done, until it becomes so obvious that he has to.

And, if the Extremists are going to make that too messy, His Holiness can always place the impacted areas under the jurisdiction of a Sui Iuris Rite which allows for married priests and just authorize them to ordain as many GODLY men as are needed to care for the faithful.

These are both extreme, but they snatch the victory from the extremists while taking care of the people in the impacted areas of Central and South America.

Either way, the best place for us to be is on our knees, praying for the Pope and that the Lord raise up Godly priests in areas that don’t have any.

Blessings and Peace, Michael
 
Caroljm36:

Those Churches with the experience will typically have 1 or 2 FULL-Time priest. The rest are ordinarily Part-timers who will do Sunday Masses, Saturday Masses, Weddings and Funerals, and whatever else they can.

The full-timer(s) will typically do the Weekday Masses, Confessions, Counselling and visiting the sick (at least during the week).

I understand that, in this situation, the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics will have a mixture of married and celebate clergy in each parish, and may have most of the clergy support themselves through outside employment. Last year, I met an Orthodox (not OCA - but celebate) who actually had a full-time job on top of being a Bishop. Talk about WORKING OUT ONE’S SALVATION!
40.png
caroljm36:
It may work for larger 1-pastor parishes, but my parish has 3 pastors and 2 deacons, so we get daily mass, regular confessions, 5 weekend masses, and all the holy days, plus funerals and weddings…how could we support the families for 3 pastors? Seems like there would have to be a rule that the associate be unmarried, and the in-residence pastor be an old guy.

But it’s not just the money. It’s the time they need to devote to their reading, prayer, homilies, counseling, at a time when women have HIGH expections of the husband’s family time. It seems also like it would put pressure on unmarried priests to get married, else look like SSA. What if a person wants to devote themselves to this kind of service? How could JPII or B16 ever have gained all the learning and pastoral experience they gained if they had had to raise families too? Personally I appreciate their philosophical brilliance and facility with languages. Sure you have secular & academics who are brilliant and learned too but often you learn later that their families really paid a price.
Click to expand...
I’m an Anglican Catholic. Some of the holiest and most decent men I’ve known have been married clergy, and they find a way to do their duty to God, their Congregations and their families. It’s NOT easy, but being a priest NEVER IS EASY! It’s NOT easy whether you’re MARRIED or CELEBATE! It makes NO difference whether we’re talking about Father Wilcox (married) or Fr. Joseph Fessio (Celebate). Those who are married, their wives have to be part of the team (like Tanya Wilcox at St. Mary’s), and they know that going in.

I don’t know how fair it is to compare any man to Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. These are 2 of the most brilliant men in modern history! Father Wilcox is considered an authority on Anglo-Catholicism and doesn’t compare. The same for Fr. Fessio who’s the Provost for Ave Maria University and the President of Ignatius Books. As brilliant as these two men are, they aren’t in their class.

That’s just not a fair comparison.

Goodnight.

Blessings and Peace, Michael
 
The situation in the Untied States is not due to priest getting married or not… it is due to lack of spiritual lives in the priests lives. People focus on lack of a sexual partner way too much when they look at the problems in the priesthood. As if that were the most important thing in a persons life and without it they become an immoral person.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top