Italian Catholic Episcopal Conference Vetoes Married Priests

[RyanBlack]

created account yesterday, and after these responses, i will no longer visit CAF. I will say this, i hope we all agree Jesus was the teacher, the way, the ultimate priest? yes, yes, and yes. with that said, his example was to be celibate, why? because he is God, and said so. Priest are better priest to us, when they are not dealing with drama from the family. They are married, they do have kids, its the church and the flock. get over yourselves

You might think about taking your own advice.

 

[countertenor]

created account yesterday, and after these responses, i will no longer visit CAF. I will say this, i hope we all agree Jesus was the teacher, the way, the ultimate priest? yes, yes, and yes. with that said, his example was to be celibate, why? because he is God, and said so. Priest are better priest to us, when they are not dealing with drama from the family. They are married, they do have kids, its the church and the flock. get over yourselves

Unless you’ve had married priests you don’t know if a celibate priest is a better priest to you. I can undoubtably say that the best priest I’ve ever had was a married priest, and the worst priest I’ve had was celibate. Jesus also called apostles who were married, so if he was expecting all priests to be celibate, are you saying he made a mistake in who he called?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

created account yesterday, and after these responses, i will no longer visit CAF. I will say this, i hope we all agree Jesus was the teacher, the way, the ultimate priest? yes, yes, and yes. with that said, his example was to be celibate, why? because he is God, and said so. Priest are better priest to us, when they are not dealing with drama from the family. They are married, they do have kids, its the church and the flock. get over yourselves

And yet we know for a fact that Peter was married. We do not know if his wife was alive or not. We also do not know if any of the other apostles were married or not.

You make the mistake of many Roman Catholics in thinking that the discipline of celibate priests is a dogma, it is not, it is only a discipline.

I think RyanBlack is correct, you need to follow your own advice.

 

[MBd]

It is perfectly reasonable for the Italian bishops to weigh in because they are the bishops in place, and these issues affect their flock. Why shouldn’t they speak?

Because a) they should mind their own business
b) I think we all agree on the fact that there are more urgent and important issues to weigh in.
c) they should begin by educating their flock if they want to avoid a “confusion”

created account yesterday, and after these responses, i will no longer visit CAF. I will say this, i hope we all agree Jesus was the teacher, the way, the ultimate priest? yes, yes, and yes. with that said, his example was to be celibate, why? because he is God, and said so. Priest are better priest to us, when they are not dealing with drama from the family. They are married, they do have kids, its the church and the flock. get over yourselves

1º no one responded you with insults or with disrespect, so with all due respect, back off
2º Yes, Jesus was the ultimate priest. And yes, he was celibate because he’s God. But that does NOT mean that a priest is a better priest when he’s celibate. If that was the case then holy orders and celibacy would be intrinsically essential to each other and, as we can see, they’re not. And celibate priests may not deal with family drama but they deal with other issues. Why? because they’re humans. They’re not God.
3º You’ve got some nerve coming here and telling the other lung of our apostolic church to “get over themselves”. Too much arrogance maybe??

 

[captainmike]

Most other denominations allow their ministers to marry and it has not caused any harm or scandle that I can think of.

really? how is the episcopal church doing these days? first, married priests. then, women priests. then, gay priests. these things go hand in hand. celibacy must be maintained!

 

[RyanBlack]

really? how is the episcopal church doing these days? first, married priests. then, women priests. then, gay priests. these things go hand in hand. celibacy must be maintained!

Take a look at the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches. They have always had married priests. A married priesthood has not led to women priests or to the ordination of openly gay priests. Oh, and also, when the Roman Catholic Church had married priests during the first several centuries, it didn’t lead to married priests or gay priests. You’re statement is utterly unconvincing.

 

[Nine_Two]

Take a look at the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches. They have always had married priests. A married priesthood has not led to women priests or to the ordination of openly gay priests. Oh, and also, when the Roman Catholic Church had married priests during the first several centuries, it didn’t lead to married priests or gay priests. You’re statement is utterly unconvincing.

Keeping in mind that I support having Married Deacon’s and priests in the East, there is a bit of a difference.

The Eastern Churches have maintained the Status quo in allowing married clergy, the churches in the west that have done it have done so as a loosening of restrictions. Loosening one restriction has often in the past given strength to those wanting to loosen other restrictions.

 

[RyanBlack]

Keeping in mind that I support having Married Deacon’s and priests in the East, there is a bit of a difference.

The Eastern Churches have maintained the Status quo in allowing married clergy, the churches in the west that have done it have done so as a loosening of restrictions. Loosening one restriction has often in the past given strength to those wanting to loosen other restrictions.

Yet, on the other hand, the Anglicans didn’t start having women priests until the 20th century and openly gay priests until the 21st century, while they’ve had married priests since the 16th century. I really don’t think there’s much of a case to be made for any sort of causal link.

 

[Nine_Two]

Yet, on the other hand, the Anglicans didn’t start having women priests until the 20th century and openly gay priests until the 21st century, while they’ve had married priests since the 16th century. I really don’t think there’s much of a case to be made for any sort of causal link.

Oh I don’t think there is any casaul link between allowing married priests and allowing women and gay priests - but I do think there is a link between one tradition being overturned and others following it.

 

[captainmike]

Yet, on the other hand, the Anglicans didn’t start having women priests until the 20th century and openly gay priests until the 21st century, while they’ve had married priests since the 16th century. I really don’t think there’s much of a case to be made for any sort of causal link.

there absolutely is a causal link.

wife: our daughter wants to be a priest.
married male priest: our church says she can’t be one.
wife: oh, honey, that’s not fair.

gay man: i want to be a priest.
bishop: you can’t be.
gay man: why not? you allowed women to be priests, thus blurring the distinction between masculine and feminine conduct. so, i’m feminine–what’s the big deal?

as far as the orthodox church goes, i fear that it, too, will either (a) give into the culture as other non-catholic churches have; or (b) become increasingly irrelevant (maybe more likely). that said, at least the orthodox church has kept its bishops celibate (at least i believe that is the case).

celibacy must be maintained. i guarantee you satan would have a big party if rome abolished the celibacy requirement.

 

[Montalo]

there absolutely is a causal link.

wife: our daughter wants to be a priest.
married male priest: our church says she can’t be one.
wife: oh, honey, that’s not fair.

gay man: i want to be a priest.
bishop: you can’t be.
gay man: why not? you allowed women to be priests, thus blurring the distinction between masculine and feminine conduct. so, i’m feminine–what’s the big deal?

as far as the orthodox church goes, i fear that it, too, will either (a) give into the culture as other non-catholic churches have; or (b) become increasingly irrelevant (maybe more likely). that said, at least the orthodox church has kept its bishops celibate (at least i believe that is the case).

celibacy must be maintained. i guarantee you satan would have a big party if rome abolished the celibacy requirement.

the gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church, as Christ promised. Holy Orthodoxy will not fall like you say, or at all

 

[Nine_Two]

as far as the orthodox church goes, i fear that it, too, will either (a) give into the culture as other non-catholic churches have; or (b) become increasingly irrelevant (maybe more likely). that said, at least the orthodox church has kept its bishops celibate (at least i believe that is the case).

celibacy must be maintained. i guarantee you satan would have a big party if rome abolished the celibacy requirement.

We’ve had married clergy for 2,000 years and haven’t given in. It is only in the West that this has been a practice, and it is only in the West that movements have risen up to do away with these rules.

I’m not sure how we can give in to a culture that is unique to the West, or how we can become more irrelevant when we started from a position at which the vast majority of Westerners had never heard of us.

 

[dvdjs]

Because
a) they should mind their own business
b) I think we all agree on the fact that there are more urgent and important issues to weigh in.
c) they should begin by educating their flock if they want to avoid a “confusion”

a) It is their business both because they are required to weigh in, and because they certainly do have a stake. I am tired of this nonsensical myopia that only the Greek Catholics have a stake in this issue.
b) I am glad that you feel comfortable in telling Italian Bishops how they should be spending their time.
c) Perhaps. But one would have to be blind even to the comments on this thread not to realize that the idea of confusion to the flock has great substance.

Sure the gang piles on hapless Latins who wander by and clumsily try to make a point. The gang is quick to take offense, but utterly unable to notice the obvious: the tradition of celibacy in the west is under stress, and that stress comes from quarters that would be very happy to advance a highly non-traditional agenda. Is that our concern? Yes: if we wish to be good neighbors; if we feel a stake in being our brother’s keeper. Whatever that “yes” ultimately means as a modus vivendi is worked out, it certainly excludes a petulant, self-centered demand to exercise rights independent of the consequences that it has on others.

If there are lessons to be learned from the past, consider these:

1. Unlike the past, the idea of bringing in foreign priests to serve the immigrant communities in their own Rite and language is not in dispute by the indigenous, established church (even as Italy is experiencing some anti-immigrant anxiety). I think this is great progress - even though it is arguably not the Eastern way at all.
2. The response of the Italian bishops is not absolute, but reflects a consideration of balance; it is provisional and connected to numbers and time.
3. Special norms still apply; there are married Romanian clergy in Italy.

Any links to Romanian responses to this?

 

[MBd]

there absolutely is a causal link.

wife: our daughter wants to be a priest.
married male priest: our church says she can’t be one.
wife: oh, honey, that’s not fair.

gay man: i want to be a priest.
bishop: you can’t be.
gay man: why not? you allowed women to be priests, thus blurring the distinction between masculine and feminine conduct. so, i’m feminine–what’s the big deal?

as far as the orthodox church goes, i fear that it, too, will either (a) give into the culture as other non-catholic churches have; or (b) become increasingly irrelevant (maybe more likely). that said, at least the orthodox church has kept its bishops celibate (at least i believe that is the case).

celibacy must be maintained. i guarantee you satan would have a big party if rome abolished the celibacy requirement.

That’s just stupid. Period

a) It is their business both because they are required to weigh in, and because they certainly do have a stake. I am tired of this nonsensical myopia that only the Greek Catholics have a stake in this issue.
b) I am glad that you feel comfortable in telling Italian Bishops how they should be spending their time.
c) Perhaps. But one would have to be blind even to the comments on this thread not to realize that the idea of confusion to the flock has great substance.

Sure the gang piles on hapless Latins who wander by and clumsily try to make a point. The gang is quick to take offense, but utterly unable to notice the obvious: the tradition of celibacy in the west is under stress, and that stress comes from quarters that would be very happy to advance a highly non-traditional agenda. Is that our concern? Yes: if we wish to be good neighbors; if we feel a stake in being our brother’s keeper. Whatever that “yes” ultimately means as a modus vivendi is worked out, it certainly excludes a petulant, self-centered demand to exercise rights independent of the consequences that it has on others.

If there are lessons to be learned from the past, consider these:

1. Unlike the past, the idea of bringing in foreign priests to serve the immigrant communities in their own Rite and language is not in dispute by the indigenous, established church (even as Italy is experiencing some anti-immigrant anxiety). I think this is great progress - even though it is arguably not the Eastern way at all.
2. The response of the Italian bishops is not absolute, but reflects a consideration of balance; it is provisional and connected to numbers and time.
3. Special norms still apply; there are married Romanian clergy in Italy.

Any links to Romanian responses to this?

a) It is NON of their business because the church recognized the RIGHT that eastern catholic churches have of mantaining the tradition of married priests and because their excuse for banning that tradition is utterly stupid.
b) I can not believe your cynicism in trying to deny the ENORMOUS problems and SERIOUS issues that we have in the Roman Church. There are none so blind as those, that will not see
c) I stand by what I said. Wanna avoid the confusion? start by EDUCATING the flock.

 

[Ignatius]

I do NOT see married priests being the end of the catholic church. In fact, if you want to increase vocations, then this is 1 way to do just that.

Your assumption goes against the facts. Applicants for liberal Western Rite orders and diocesan priesthood with folks espousing merried Western Rite priestood are spirialing downward while seminaries for the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) and other Traditional Roman Rite Catholic orders are not able to keep up with the number of applicants.

Sadly our vocations in Byzantine and other Sui Juris Eastern Catholic Churches with married clergy are not overwhelming either.

 

[dvdjs]

a) It is NON of their business because the church recognized the RIGHT that eastern catholic churches have of mantaining the tradition of married priests and because their excuse for banning that tradition is utterly stupid.

You are in error on the facts. You may wish the law to be different but it is not. And the weighing in of the Italian Bishops in order to have a general dispensation from teh special norms is required.

b) I can not believe your cynicism in trying to deny the ENORMOUS problems and SERIOUS issues that we have in the Roman Church. There are none so blind as those, that will not see

I don’t deny anything, I just don’t give much thought to the Roman church - even less t the Roman church in Italy. So I am not sure what you are talking about or how is meaningful in this context. Please elaborate.

c) I stand by what I said. Wanna avoid the confusion? start by EDUCATING the flock.

Everyone needs more education. (See for example your response to point a). There is more to the problem, however, than a lack of knowledge. I doesn’t take much insight, however, to understand that beyond lack of knowledge there is a far more complex problem of culture. That solution to that problem requires time for familiarization.

 

[dvdjs]

We’ve had married clergy for 2,000 years and haven’t given in. It is only in the West that this has been a practice, and it is only in the West that movements have risen up to do away with these rules.

This comment is straying from the topic, but needs a response.

The impetus against these rules is of a relative recent origin during which time Orthodoxy effectively captive and in something of a intellectual holding pattern. Now there are currents within Orthodoxy to advanced the ordination of women. What will happen in the next hundred years - will the 2000 year traditions prevail? The answer is not so obvious: 1900 years of tradition didn’t stand up tho the cultural demands for artificial birth control.

 

[Hesychios]

there absolutely is a causal link.

wife: our daughter wants to be a priest.
married male priest: our church says she can’t be one.
wife: oh, honey, that’s not fair.

gay man: i want to be a priest.
bishop: you can’t be.
gay man: why not? you allowed women to be priests, thus blurring the distinction between masculine and feminine conduct. so, i’m feminine–what’s the big deal?

That’s only ion your mind because the Latin church stopped ordaining married men at some point and now you are classifying the practice with other ideas that were never a serious issue in the early Latin church when married priests were relatively common.

You are thinking of it as a “camel’s nose under the tent” kind of thing, but the fact is the issue of married priesthood is not connected in any way with these other liberal western Catholic issues. By restricting the practice of ordaining married men in your church, it has confused the Roman Catholic laity into thinking that all of these practices are equallly reprehensible when in fact there is no connection.

This is poor stewardship, the hierarchy of the Latin Catholic church completely failed it’s own people. It appears that time and again, from France and America, to Australia, Poland and Italy the Latin Catholic hierachies of these many places over generations will continue to place the burden to aid and abet it’s own failure to educate it’s own people on the Eastern Catholics, who must struggle to find enough celibate priests to serve these congregations in the diaspora. In the past this resulted in raiding the monasteries, and one can see that the monastic tradition has suffered for it.

I think, personally, that the practice of using females as altar servers is far more likely to raise issues in the ranks over female ordination to the priesthood. This was something an old RC priest friend of mine believed firmly, and lamented numerous times. I came to see his point eventually.

You should also be aware, and I think it is worth it to remind others here, that celibacy is also highly prized and respected in the eastern church. One state is not superior to the other, they are different gifts, to be sure.

as far as the orthodox church goes, i fear that it, too, will either (a) give into the culture as other non-catholic churches have;

You have no warrant to make such a claim.

… or (b) become increasingly irrelevant (maybe more likely).

That is just an insult. It clearly shows one more reason for the Orthodox to avoid any association with people who think like you. You would bring us down to your level, and it would be a crime to allow that to happen to God’s Holy Church.

…celibacy must be maintained. i guarantee you satan would have a big party if rome abolished the celibacy requirement.

You are making this comment as if the Romanian Catholics, the Ukrainian Catholics and others are bringing some dreaded disease with them in the form of married priests! Do you allege that because these churches have the option of celibacy but not the requirement of it that their churches are under the influence of Satan ?!??

Celibacy is maintained in the eastern church. As I stated above it is a highly prized and respected calling, and I cannot see how the option would not also be highly prized and respected in any church anywhere, including the Romanian Catholic church and including also the Latin Catholic church.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

That’s only ion your mind because the Latin church stopped ordaining married men at some point and now you are classifying the practice with other ideas that were never a serious issue in the early Latin church when married priests were relatively common.

You are thinking of it as a “camel’s nose under the tent” kind of thing, but the fact is the issue of married priesthood is not connected in any way with these other liberal western Catholic issues. By restricting the practice of ordaining married men in your church, it has confused the Roman Catholic laity into thinking that all of these practices are equallly reprehensible when in fact there is no connection.

Michael,
I think some of what captainmike is saying makes some sense.

It makes sense because the groups that are calling for a married priesthood in the West are not the same as the groups that are calling for it in the East.

In the East the groups calling for a married secular priesthood are the traditionalist groups. In the West the groups (predominately) calling for a married secular priesthood are the progressive groups that would also like to allow other progressive nonsense such as priestesses.

 

[RyanBlack]

there absolutely is a causal link.

wife: our daughter wants to be a priest.
married male priest: our church says she can’t be one.
wife: oh, honey, that’s not fair.

gay man: i want to be a priest.
bishop: you can’t be.
gay man: why not? you allowed women to be priests, thus blurring the distinction between masculine and feminine conduct. so, i’m feminine–what’s the big deal?

as far as the orthodox church goes, i fear that it, too, will either (a) give into the culture as other non-catholic churches have; or (b) become increasingly irrelevant (maybe more likely). that said, at least the orthodox church has kept its bishops celibate (at least i believe that is the case).

celibacy must be maintained. i guarantee you satan would have a big party if rome abolished the celibacy requirement.

Absurd. The Orthodox Churches have made less accommodation to modern culture than the Catholic Church has.