How can priests advise on marital relations?

[The_Old_Medic]

You do not have to be blind to work with the blind and to train them to live more productive lives.

You do not have to be paralysed, in order to rehabilitate people that are paralysed.

You do not have to be mentally ill in order to treat the mentally ill.

The analogy that if you are not married, you can not counsel married people is a bunch of bull manure. Just a a “civilian” Marriage and Family Counselor does not have to be married in order to be effective, neither does a Priest

Priests all grew up in a family of some sort. They have seen marital interaction, sibling rivalry, etc., etc. They also take a number of courses in counseling techniques, which prepares them to do basic counseling. Most Priests know when to refer someone out to a more experienced or better trained professional.

The idea that unmarried people can not counsel married people is silly, foolish and is the concept of the ignorant and untrained.

By those standards, I should never counsel women, because I am not a woman; I should never counsel children because I am not a child, I should never counsel police or fire personnel because I have not worked in those professions, I can never counsel professional athletes, because I have never been a professional athlete.

My Ed.D in Rehabilitation Counseling, and my 38 years of experience as a counselor/therapist mean nothing, unless I have specifically done exactly what my clients have done? Not hardly!

 

[newbetx]

Hi,

Well I would first tell these people that God made the rules and He doesnt have sex. Secondly I would tell them if having sex makes you a better expert or better qualified to advise on relationships then maybe they should talk to a prostitute rather than their priest.

Rather sarcastic and not all that helpful advice.

Well, in a way it is a bit of both. Experience isn’t necessarily a recipe for success. And it pretty much shows the failure of analogies as simple proofs. I actually like the latter comment, but I was looking for something deeper. Along the lines of the first half of the post.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

You do not have to be blind to work with the blind and to train them to live more productive lives.

You do not have to be paralysed, in order to rehabilitate people that are paralysed.

You do not have to be mentally ill in order to treat the mentally ill.

The analogy that if you are not married, you can not counsel married people is a bunch of bull manure. Just a a “civilian” Marriage and Family Counselor does not have to be married in order to be effective, neither does a Priest

Priests all grew up in a family of some sort. They have seen marital interaction, sibling rivalry, etc., etc. They also take a number of courses in counseling techniques, which prepares them to do basic counseling. Most Priests know when to refer someone out to a more experienced or better trained professional.

The idea that unmarried people can not counsel married people is silly, foolish and is the concept of the ignorant and untrained.

By those standards, I should never counsel women, because I am not a woman; I should never counsel children because I am not a child, I should never counsel police or fire personnel because I have not worked in those professions, I can never counsel professional athletes, because I have never been a professional athlete.

My Ed.D in Rehabilitation Counseling, and my 38 years of experience as a counselor/therapist mean nothing, unless I have specifically done exactly what my clients have done? Not hardly!

Bolding added.

Can’t’ be any clearer.
,

 

[newbetx]

Any how. back to the OP. I just dont see how with no real world experience a person can teach someone else. I drove truck for 11 years. I was a driving instructor for 3 of those. Loved it. When I got these students, they already had alot of book work under their belt. But it is a whole lot different to read something, And a whole nother thing to actually do it. It takes someone who HAS experience in this field to train them. A bunch of people cant just read books for 2000 years, hand some one the keys and say here you go! Heres how its done! In many cases, if I wasnt there, the student would never have made it out of the parking lot. It takes someone qualified, with experience to teach anything. Going back to the cancer doctor analogy, They see the cancer, they touch the cancer they remove the cancer, in their training. They actually have hands on with this disease. How many priest, Hold a woman, Touch a woman, Have relations with a woman, are Married to a woman or live with a woman? I would say for the most part, less then 1 percent. Unless of course they are coming over from the anglican side, Or have lost a spouse, and joined the priest hood then. But most have never experienced This level of human contact. How then are they qualified to advise? I really dont understand why this is really so difficult.

And for those that don’t know, these are exactly the arguments I started this thread for. So as far as I can see, Benidict can not be accused of derailing this thread.

Excellent points. 20/20 hindsight really helps here (my little hint)…

OK. So if you are a member of the military, are you qualified to run a war. No. You may be trained to fight a war, but you may not be qualified to actually run one, right?

 

[Corki]

Youd be amazed how many DO look to unqualified people to treat physical ailments. But in the case of a doctor, Even if they have not had cancer, there is a good chance they have been ill in their lives, and have experience with sickness. So they do Have experience where they can empthize and relate. Doctors not only get acedemic course study, they get real life experience. So, even if they have never had cancer, many have, if that is their course of study, had experience in treating it. They experience first hand the ugliness of it, what form it takes etc. They see it.Under the qualified leadership of other doctors. They dont just read a book and go into practice. So therefore It stands to reason, that if someone is giving marital advice, wouldnt it be better they were married first? instead of just having an acedemic view of it? A Priest cannot do this. They cannot have practical experience and this cannot be taught acedemically. No more than a person who has only had an acedemic course can treat cancer, or teach your youngster how to drive a car. And you also would not want someone who is not trained with practical experience, try to set a bone for you either. Before A Doctor does these on you, he has had experience doing them on maniquens they have set up. Or cadivors, or animals or something. But he has not just read a book and called it good, Or taken a course or two. Your turn.

But using your doctor analogy – even if a priest has never been married, they have experience with marriage and with sexuality. Most, if not all, have experienced a relationship with a woman, virtually all have been part of a family headed by a married couple, they don’t just read a book on marriage and go do counseling. They draw on life experiences of thier own, of their parishioners, of family members. They have practical experiencing in counseling. Even your bone doctor is going to have to set a bone for the first time without experience. And he doesn’t need to have broken bones himself to do so.

Even a married clergy person (deacon) who does marriage counseling won’t have experienced firsthand everything he needs to know. Hopefully, the deacon won’t have experienced porn addiction, adultery, separation or abuse but those are all topics that come up in marriage counseling. If anything, a happily married deacon may be less able to empathize with and counsel someone in a dysfunctional or struggling marriage because of his own frame of reference.

 

[newbetx]

You too Grace? You wish to misquote me also? I mentioned this book along with others, but This is the one you seem to have a problem with. I gave 1 copy to a couple I knew, who needed a spark in their marriage. They were very greatful. TMI? Your the ones who keep bringing it up. I dont mind your attacks on me, but i do deal with some pretty sensitive people here. They can pm me, so the likes of you, do not lambast them with your arrogance and anger. Im actually approachable. Can you perhaps shine some light on Pope Gregory, and his negative comments reguarding Marital Sexuality? Ever since I have posted these, and asked for an answer, all Im getting is attacked. Do you have something to contribute to his statements? If not then you and I are done also. I have already recieved an ifraction for sticking up for myself, and instead of receiving another one, I am willing to use the ignore button. My post are not really for you anyhow. just to show those, whom you and your ilk would otherwise drive to despair, That there are ulterior points of view out there. And we are not all judgmental pharisees. Now, either you have something to contribute about Pope Gregory, and his negative comments on Marital sex. or you dont. You get ONE shot. then like John here, You can go onto ignore yourself. Thank you.

You just don’t get it. The link you use is not just liberal. It is an identified dissenting at the least non-Catholic organization!

By believing what dissenting Catholics claim, the reality that you also become one is not far-fetched. With reference to Pope Gregory’s ‘papal error’ I deny the meaning attached to the words that the critics of the deceased pope make.*The teachings of Popes Gregory (I) the Great, Paul VI, and John Paul II
are all consistent and complementary. The Church has consistently taught
that “only” when a spouse “exclusively” seeks pleasure in marital
intercourse, does the seeking of pleasure in marital intercourse violate
the “law” of marriage and become the sin of lust.

The claim, that Pope Gregory (I) the Great taught that the mere presence of
pleasure in marital sexual intercourse is sinful, is clearly false. Nor is
it correct to claim that Pope Gregory erred in his ordinary
Magisterium in the matter of marital sexuality.
*Examine the context and the basis of criticisms first. My point is that instead of directing members of this forum to non-Catholic sources, you can cite links such as this one:

[Did Pope St. Gregory the Great really teach that the presence of pleasure
in marital sexual intercourse is sinful?

            PAPAL ERRORS IN THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM?
                        By Regis Scanlon](http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/PAPERR.TXT)

Once again, benidict, you have made another thread a stage for your repeating false rant. Not to mention a pattern of derailing threads. The OP and subsequent posts were reasonable, fleshing out the arguments related to the qualification of priests to counsel on marital problems. You had to string it to your loose claim that the Church or a Pope is wrong on the teaching on married sexuality. And insist for the nth time as though the subject is about how to make your sexual partner happy in the marital bed or has anything to do with the mechanics of sex, so the priest or the Church is disqualified from counselling with authority. If you read the posts on the first two pages, you should have reached understanding of the heart of the matter.

Your display of logic and lack of following logic would already cause embarrassment in another. Sorry to say they don’t in your case.
,

Pope Gregory vs. Pope John Paul II. I love it! One says one thing and one sort of, says the other. So what IS Church teaching?This is the crux of the matter in a nutshell.

I was going to start another thread about “common misconceptions of Catholic marital relations” but I’ll hold off for now.

“Just what is infallibility of the Pope?” is yet another subthread needing addressing… but all in due time.

 

[TimothyH]

My Ed.D in Rehabilitation Counseling, and my 38 years of experience as a counselor/therapist mean nothing, unless I have specifically done exactly what my clients have done? Not hardly!

No Doctor. You have it backwards.

Only doctors who have never been sick in their lives are qualified to keep people healthy.

-Tim-

 

[Stephen168]

So are you telling me, You would be comfortable having someone who never drove a car, but read alot of “Car and Driver”, teach your youngsters drivers education course?

You are assuming ‘Car and Driver’ is a Driver’s Ed Manual: It is not.
You are assuming the only way to learn the rules of the road is behind the wheel of a car: It is not.
You are assuming the coordination and physical requirements to drive a car can be taught: they cannot.
Most instruction takes place in the classroom and not behind the wheel. I had my first instruction four years after the first time I drove a car. A priest could easily be qualified to teach the ‘rules of the road’ without having been behind the wheel.

 

[newbetx]

I’m pretty sure that not every single seminarian was a virgin when he entered, especially nowadays. So assuming your parish priest has never had active sexual experience in the context of some sort of heterosexual relationship is probably an erroneous assumption. But even without that, most people can figure out the anatomy by themselves, and sexual discord is usually NOT the cause of a marriage disintegration. It’s usually communication, money, or selfishness expressed in a number of different ways. Sometimes couples are just lousy roommates. The other irritations and issues get expressed a number of ways, one of which is sexual discord. Since the people involved aren’t very good at problem solving in the first place (which is why they have the communication issues and other selfish acting out,) one or the other starts engaging in selfish sexual behavior. You don’t need to be Dr. Ruth to unravel these kinds of gordian knots, and a priest or a religious person might really be a better choice to get two people to rise above their selfish behavior and try for something better.

Good points. I mean really, how many of us stay at the Holiday Inn Express every night?

 

[Brendan]

No Doctor. You have it backwards.

Only doctors who have never been sick in their lives are qualified to keep people healthy.

-Tim-

Exactly, and the only doctors who should only get an OB board certification are women who have had children.

 

[newbetx]

The idea that unmarried people can not counsel married people is silly, foolish and is the concept of the ignorant and untrained.

Bolding added.

Can’t’ be any clearer.
,

But that is the crux of the matter. Whether it is even possible for ANY priest to have the ability to advise. There is a difference between “NO priest can be qualified” and “Some priests may be qualified.” The statement on the table is “NO priest can be qualified.”

Now, some, as we know, are even poor at giving Catholic teaching advice. So if someone was reluctant to accept something at face value he/she gets from a priest, then it is perfectly understandable. Mostly, though, they are well versed in Catholic teaching. I say, go with the odds. But feel free to get data to verify. “Trust but verify” comes to mind.

To say that “No priest is capable of guiding a married couple on what is proper married behavior” is a very strong statement. But please, silly? No. Matter of opinion? Probalby. To prove as factually wrong… more difficult. But something we need to prove anyway.

 

[ForGood]

I think going to your priest if you have one or any priest if you don’t have a favorite is a good start for any dilemma you find yourself not able to solve on your own. If he can’t help you he most certainly will know where to direct you and you can be sure that that direction has all the qualities you need to fix whatever problem.

I agree with some of the other posters too that just b/c the priest isn’t having sex doesn’t mean he can’t talk about it! Talking to a priest about sex, for me, is rather liberating only because of the safety in knowing that in his chaste state he’s not concentrating on the semantics so much as the spiritual goings-on. I have my own trust issues with men to begin with so my husband and a priest are probably the only men I would feel safe with anyway. No matter what the world might think about them today. Call me naive, but yeah well.

 

[newbetx]

Exactly, and the only doctors who should only get an OB board certification are women who have had children.

Love the analogies but really they are not doing the job to prove the opposite. Just because we can create a whole list of falacies does not mean any of the opposite is true. We have to dig deeper!

 

[Muze]

I’m pretty sure that not every single seminarian was a virgin when he entered, especially nowadays. So assuming your parish priest has never had active sexual experience in the context of some sort of heterosexual relationship is probably an erroneous assumption. But even without that, most people can figure out the anatomy by themselves, and sexual discord is usually NOT the cause of a marriage disintegration. It’s usually communication, money, or selfishness expressed in a number of different ways. Sometimes couples are just lousy roommates. The other irritations and issues get expressed a number of ways, one of which is sexual discord. Since the people involved aren’t very good at problem solving in the first place (which is why they have the communication issues and other selfish acting out,) one or the other starts engaging in selfish sexual behavior. You don’t need to be Dr. Ruth to unravel these kinds of gordian knots, and a priest or a religious person might really be a better choice to get two people to rise above their selfish behavior and try for something better.

However, having been married and understanding the marriage relationship from the inside is a very large advantage. The sexual aspect is often as tied up in these other issues as any, and understanding the married sexual relationship is very important in unraveling the rest.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Exactly, and the only doctors who should only get an OB board certification are women who have had children.

Oh Brendan, sugar, you need to go even further. They have to be women who have had not only singleton births but multiple births, have vaginal AND cesarean AND VBAC deliveries, to have had epidurals, ‘natural’ childbirth, no drugs at all, been completely anesthetized; to have miscarried in early, mid, and late pregnancy, have had children with every possible birth defect both congenital and nosocomial, have had the children while being married, single, in relations, addicted to drugs, with STDs up to and including HIV/AIDS, to be Christian, nonChristian, to have had children in early teens and up to the late 50s, to have had children who were small, average, and large for gestational age. . .

I could go on because there are so many many variables in women and pregnancy, but the idea that only a person who has ‘experienced’ something can be qualified to teach or to ‘act’ on the subject is just ludicruous.

 

[newbetx]

I think going to your priest if you have one or any priest if you don’t have a favorite is a good start for any dilemma you find yourself not able to solve on your own. If he can’t help you he most certainly will know where to direct you and you can be sure that that direction has all the qualities you need to fix whatever problem.

I agree with some of the other posters too that just b/c the priest isn’t having sex doesn’t mean he can’t talk about it! Talking to a priest about sex, for me, is rather liberating only because of the safety in knowing that in his chaste state he’s not concentrating on the semantics so much as the spiritual goings-on. I have my own trust issues with men to begin with so my husband and a priest are probably the only men I would feel safe with anyway. No matter what the world might think about them today. Call me naive, but yeah well.

Good point… I especially like the trust angle. While recent events might put a dent in the armor of the religious, the fact is we have to trust someone. If all men were judged upon the few that are misguided, then there would be little hope for the rest of us. Same for priests. We should be able to trust them. One reason is their career and training choices. They are there to serve us, not themselves. Now why should we trust them? Next layer of the onion? Spiritualaity training for sure… but have we really made the connection here between Spirituality and sexuality in light of Catholic teaching? Not yet, but I think it’s due.

 

[newbetx]

However, having been married and understanding the marriage relationship from the inside is a very large advantage. The sexual aspect is often as tied up in these other issues as any, and understanding the married sexual relationship is very important in unraveling the rest.

True, but we all have very limited experience in each of these if we are married or sexually active. What makes us qualified to advise someone with similar or different problems than we have direct experience with? Merely our experience? How do we know it will apply or result in the same out come?

Do we ever say, “I don’t know, but I did this and it failed miserably. What ever you do, don’t do that!”? Is that qualified advice?

 

[GratefulFred]

A proper marriage is a three way deal. Man. Woman. God.

One spouse is trying to deal with the other spouse. But what does God expect from both spouses?

In marriage counseling, who is the better to speak for God?

Here in California (don’t know about other states) some priests have an MFCC qualification - Marriage, Family, Child Counselor.

 

[newbetx]

A proper marriage is a three way deal. Man. Woman. God.

One spouse is trying to deal with the other spouse. But what does God expect from both spouses?

In marriage counseling, who is the better to speak for God?

Here in California (don’t know about other states) some priests have an MFCC qualification - Marriage, Family, Child Counselor.

Excellent point? But where does this certification come from? Do Rabbi’s, pastors or Marriage/Family Counselors get the same?

 

[newbetx]

Oh Brendan, sugar, you need to go even further. They have to be women who have had not only singleton births but multiple births, have vaginal AND cesarean AND VBAC deliveries, to have had epidurals, ‘natural’ childbirth, no drugs at all, been completely anesthetized; to have miscarried in early, mid, and late pregnancy, have had children with every possible birth defect both congenital and nosocomial, have had the children while being married, single, in relations, addicted to drugs, with STDs up to and including HIV/AIDS, to be Christian, nonChristian, to have had children in early teens and up to the late 50s, to have had children who were small, average, and large for gestational age. . .

I could go on because there are so many many variables in women and pregnancy, but the idea that only a person who has ‘experienced’ something can be qualified to teach or to ‘act’ on the subject is just ludicruous.

No this is what I call “inclusive”!:clapping::clapping: