Married/Female priests?

[JeffreyGerard]

hthrlu:

Imagine for a moment:

Ever since Adam and Eve sinned, there has been power inequity between men and women. Women have been property, with no rights of their own. In recent centuries, women were 2nd class citizens. In the last 40 years, women have been making breakthrough after breakthrough, advancing their equality. (In Pope John Paul II’s Dignity writing, he said that it was all mankind’s and every generation’s responsibility to undo the inequity that was the result of sin). What if, just imagine, what if God is behind the women’s movement in America, and it’s because he’s guiding us towards equality?

Just a thought.

Pop quiz.
Q: What gender was God’s most perfect creature?
A: Female. Our Blessed Mother.

It appears to me that female is God’s more perfect form.
So who cares if you’re not treated exactly equally on earth –
in God’s eyes you’re the more perfect form. Rejoice!

Bonus questions.

1. 
   *] While on earth, did our Blessed Mother demand equality or exhibit humility?
   *]Did she seek to change the law or demonstrate obedience to the law?
   *]Did Mary want to become a Rabbi?
   
   When I look at this female priest heresy and compare it
   how our Blessed Mother acted, it only helps me become
   more aware of the pride and error that is paraded around
   as enlightened thinking and actions of a “progressive” God.
   
   Women will never be ordained. The Church doesn’t have
   the authority. Period.
   
   Jeff

 

[Neithan]

JeffreyGerard:

It appears to me that female is God’s more perfect form.
So who cares if you’re not treated exactly equally on earth –
in God’s eyes you’re the more perfect form. Rejoice!

whoaa… slow down there, Ladies’ Man. Let’s not forget Jesus Christ, God Himself in human form. But yes the most perfect purely human person is Mary, a woman. So we have these two models of perfection, male and female both. Jesus and Mary.

If the Church were to ordain women (which she won’t, but hypothetically speaking), she would be completely undermining her millenia-old authority and her integrity… the door would be flung wide open to all manner of heresy, no teaching would ever again be considered binding, everything would be fair game for personal opinion. If Christ wanted women apostles/bishops/priests, he would definitely have ordained some, especially the most perfect woman who ever lived!

Not to offend my Eastern rite brothers and sisters, but I don’t think it would be wise to officially do away the celibacy law in the west at this time, precisely because everyone is clamouring so loudly for it. It would be as though the Church were affirming that priests should be married, not just *allowed *to be. It’s like way back when heretics were demanding to receive both kinds in the Sacrament, because it was necessary, they said. The Church then allowed communion under the bread alone, because it’s not that we *should *take both kinds, but we may. So now we can, but don’t have to. I think we should wait until the aftershock from the child sex abuse scandal dies down, fix the homosexual priest scandal, and hope that the state of marriage will improve in general. Then, when we realize that priestly marriage is not a *should *but a could, the Church might allow it. That would be some decades down the line I think.

Bishops, of course, will always be celibate.
I wonder though… can women be deacons?

 

[Ghosty]

Not to offend my Eastern rite brothers, but I don’t think it would be wise to officially do away the celibacy law in the west at this time, precisely because everyone is clamouring so loudly for it.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I don’t think any of our Eastern brethren are offended that we don’t have married priests as a norm. I think that they get offended by certain individuals’ implication that there is something inherently disordered about married priests. I’d imagine that Eastern Catholics are perfectly fine with us continuing our Western tradition that has served our culture so well for over a thousand years.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Ghosty:

I may be going out on a limb here, but I don’t think any of our Eastern brethren are offended that we don’t have married priests as a norm. I think that they get offended by certain individuals’ implication that there is something inherently disordered about married priests. I’d imagine that Eastern Catholics are perfectly fine with us continuing our Western tradition that has served our culture so well for over a thousand years.

I couldn’t have said it better myself and I know because I have tried.

 

[Rm_Catholic]

Theologically speaking, a priest cannot be married. It is the teaching of the church that on the altar during the consecration, the priest is the most perfect representation of Christ. Not by his merit, but by the miracle of God. Also in the confessional, the priest serves as a representative of Jesus who forgives sin. Because of these very holy and miraculous representations of Jesus, the priest must be male as well as have no wife, just like Our Lord!!!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Rm Catholic:

Theologically speaking, a priest cannot be married. It is the teaching of the church that on the altar during the consecration, the priest is the most perfect representation of Christ. Not by his merit, but by the miracle of God. Also in the confessional, the priest serves as a representative of Jesus who forgives sin. Because of these very holy and miraculous representations of Jesus, the priest must be male as well as have no wife, just like Our Lord!!!

I am sorry but you are wrong and do not know Catholic Theology to well if you think this is so.

As the Latin Catholic Church has married priests today and the Byzantine Catholic and the Orthodox Churches have always had a married priesthood.

As for the rest after this, it has nothing to do with celibacy and Jesus picked Peter, who was married, to head his Church so again, you are a bit off on this.

 

[hthrlu]

JeffreyGerard:

Pop quiz.
Q: What gender was God’s most perfect creature?
A: Female. Our Blessed Mother.

It appears to me that female is God’s more perfect form.
So who cares if you’re not treated exactly equally on earth –
in God’s eyes you’re the more perfect form. Rejoice!

Bonus questions.

1. 
   *]While on earth, did our Blessed Mother demand equality or exhibit humility?
   *]Did she seek to change the law or demonstrate obedience to the law?
   *]Did Mary want to become a Rabbi?
   
   When I look at this female priest heresy and compare it
   how our Blessed Mother acted, it only helps me become
   more aware of the pride and error that is paraded around
   as enlightened thinking and actions of a “progressive” God.
   
   Women will never be ordained. The Church doesn’t have
   the authority. Period.
   
   Jeff

1. 
   Mary was more perfect than Jesus?
   
   Aside from that - whether Mary wanted to be a rabbi or not has nothing to do with my point. My point is that if God wants it to change, it will change. Nothing is impossible where He’s concerned. The Church will have the “authority” to ordain women if God reveals to our Pope and Cardinals that it’s His plan for that to happen.
   
   “Who cares if you’re not treated exactly equal on earth?” I do. I think it’s fair to say that there are lots of people who care. Do I want it changed, not right now. Do I think it’s impossible? No. Do I think it should be changed? Yeah, probably, at some point.
   
   I think that all throughout this thread, people try to explain why it’s not unfair, and that women are equal. Then, it’s is unequal, but it’s not our fault - the Church “has no authority” to change it. And then, “it’s not that bad, you should be happy to carry your cross here on earth”. This at least admits that it’s not fair and it’s not good.
   
   What is your opinion, ByzCath, about Pope John Paul II’s writing in the Dignity letter that said:
   

   But this threat is more serious for the woman, since domination takes the place of “being a sincere gift” and therefore living “for” the other: “he shall rule over you”. This “domination” indicates the disturbance and *loss of the stability *of that *fundamental equality *which the man and the woman possess in the “unity of the two”: and this is especially to the disadvantage of the woman, whereas only the equality resulting from their dignity as persons can give to their mutual relationship the character of an authentic “*communio personarum”. *While the violation of this equality, which is both a gift and a right deriving from God the Creator, involves an element to the disadvantage of the woman, at the same time it also diminishes the true dignity of the man.
   
   

   and

   * The inheritance of sin*

   
   suggested by the words of the Bible_“Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you”_*can be conquered *only by following this path. The overcoming of this evil inheritance is, generation after generation, the task of every human being, whether woman or man.
   

   Doesn’t it seem that we’re responsible for overcoming the inequity of that sin of Adam and Eve?

 

[Rm_Catholic]

ByzCath:

I am sorry but you are wrong and do not know Catholic Theology to well if you think this is so.

As the Latin Catholic Church has married priests today and the Byzantine Catholic and the Orthodox Churches have always had a married priesthood.

As for the rest after this, it has nothing to do with celibacy and Jesus picked Peter, who was married, to head his Church so again, you are a bit off on this.

True, but I don’t recall ever hearing of the apostle’s families going along with them for the three-year instruction Our Lord gave them. In fact, they left their families, including their wives, to follow Jesus. Are you assuming that Peter’s wife and family were with him in Antioch and finally in Rome?

Remember…Jesus praised people who would give up sex (pro-creation) for the sake of the kingdom.

Please don’t think I’m saying that marriage is bad. I’m not even saying that Priests wouldn’t make good husbands.

Yes, Peter was married, but he gave it up for the sake of the kingdom.

I think I’ve hit the nail on the head, but thats just my opinion!!!

God Bless

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Rm Catholic:

Yes, Peter was married, but he gave it up for the sake of the kingdom.

We do not know this for sure.

I think I’ve hit the nail on the head, but thats just my opinion!!!

Yes, your opinon, which differs from what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[Rm_Catholic]

ByzCath:

We do not know this for sure.

Agreed, so when in doubt we lean towards what our Lord said in the scriptures. St. Paul had some interesting statements as well.

Yes, your opinon, which differs from what the Catholic Church teaches.

Then why Celibacy???

God Bless

 

[Steve_M]

ByzCath:

You seem to conveniently end the Canon at “aunt” leaving out “or of any person who is above suspicion”.

I’m not conviently leaving out anything. I gave you a direct quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia at Newadvent.com. If someone left it out, it was them.

And anyways, as the Orthodox and the Byzantine Churches continue to have a married priesthoood it is obviously not a matter of dogma but one of discipline

This I agree with. My original point was just that priestly celebacy had not been instituted because of a pope being a Benedictine. It had been practiced much longer than that.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Steve M:

I’m not conviently leaving out anything. I gave you a direct quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia at Newadvent.com. If someone left it out, it was them.

Ok, sorry for saying it was you. Just another reason why I stay away from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

This I agree with. My original point was just that priestly celebacy had not been instituted because of a pope being a Benedictine. It had been practiced much longer than that.

Now I understand. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.

 

[Lance]

MugenOne:

How about homosexual priest marriage? How about priest marrying his donkey? Once we allow priests to marry, all hell gonna break lose.

This is not at all true. The above statement is just asinine. The Eastern Rites, which are just as Catholic as the Latin Rite, have always had married priests.

 

[Ignatius]

Angainor:

The prohibition on married Priests has not always existed (right? The first Pope was married.) so it seems that it is not outside the realm of possibility that married Priests could come back.

There are even today married priests. That discipline could change.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

John Higgins,

If it HAD been manifestly demonstrated, would the RESPONSUM AD DUBIUM have been necessary? No.

That’s absurd. By this ridiculous standard, I can send a *dubium *to the Holy See with regard to a Marian doctrine, and any responsum ad dubium telling me, “affirmative, the Marian doctrine is taught infallibly” would prove, in your absurd thesis, that the Marian doctrine was not infallible.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

John Higgins,

Why should I believe a fallible head of a fallible dicastery saying something is infallible?

I presumed that you are a Catholic. If you are, then like me, you are bound by Catholic canon law, no?

According to Catholic canon law, Catholics are bound to give their religious assent to all doctrines proposed by the magisterium. As such, it doesn’t have to be pronounced *ex cathedra *before Catholics are bound to give religious submission of will and intellect to this authentic teaching of the magisterium.

Law abiding Catholics are not allowed to dissent from Catholic doctrine, *de fide *or not.

Hebrews 13:17

Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 892:

**892 **Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

Code of Canon Law:

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff OR the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, *Lumen Gentium, *25

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Pius XII,* Humani Generis*, 20

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"

St. Pius X:

"If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. " (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)

… We do now declare and expressly order, that all are bound by the duty of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Pontifical Commission, both those which have thus far been published and those which will hereafter be proclaimed, just as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which pertain to doctrine and have been approved by the Pontiff

---

(From Motu proprio of Pope Pius X, *Praestantis Scripturae, *Nov 18, 1907, Denzinger 2113)

By his ordinary teaching authority, the Roman Pontiff teaches the faithful that the doctrine proscribing ordination of women is taught infallibly. Law abiding Catholics are bound to this ordinary teaching authority and are to "are to adhere to it with religious assent."

 

[cazayoux]

hthrlu:

• The inheritance of sin*

suggested by the words of the Bible_“Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you”_*can be conquered *only by following this path. The overcoming of this evil inheritance is, generation after generation, the task of every human being, whether woman or man.

Doesn’t it seem that we’re responsible for overcoming the inequity of that sin of Adam and Eve?

Yes it seems that we are ALL (“whether woman or man”) responsible.

 

[rschermer2]

ByzCath:

It is one thing to have a opinion and to want to keep the tradition of your Church, but to make a statement like this is just plain offensive.

Please explain yourself.

The Eastern Catholic Churches, mainly the Churches of the Byzantine Rite, have had married clergy since the beginning and we still have them today.

Not only that, there are many married priests within the Latin Church, converts to Catholicism who Rome approved the ordination of.

So your statement is false.

I agree with you regarding the offensiveness of the comments, however even though I voted that only Female Priests was impossible, it doesn’t mean that I think that the Latin Rite should change its discipline on the celibacy of the priesthood, and the reason is I feel that it is a good discipline and that it is beneficial for the man who is a priest as it makes his work more focused.

Rochus

 

[Rm_Catholic]

I believe that the priest should be unmarried so he can give everything he has to God and the church.

The Catholic church, specifically the magesterium, is protected from error on matters of doctrine, faith, and morals. It is not, however, protected from error in matters of government and/or dicipline (at least thats what I have found out).

Because celibacy is man’s gift to God, and it is also something Jesus praised, could we then conclude that maybe the governing rule of allowing priests to marry may not have been the best idea.

(I know some people will take this the wrong way…so please don’t)!!!

Even if all priests were allowed to marry, I would remain celibate as a gift and sacrifice for the sake of the kingdom!!!

Does anyone out there agree…or am I all alone again!!!

God Bless!!!

 

[crusader4life]

Saint Peter left his wife and family and followed and served Jesus Christ for the rest of his life. Besides, like what others have said, it’s hard to “serve two masters”. To take of the parish family and to take care of one’s own family would be too much for a priest.
There’s also a feministic movement going on pushing for female priests. That’s just sad. Women have extremely special roles to society. You don’t need to be in a position of “power” or in the limelight to be vital, blessed, respected, and so on. God made men and women different in many ways and at many levels. We are degrading the honor of both sexes by trying to make them exactaly equal.
This does not mean however, that women are only to stay as housewives. Not at all. There are just certain roles that are meant specifically for one sex or the other. Women are like tabernacles. Mary had Jesus in her womb as He is inside a tabernacle. Without women there is no life. Study JP II’s Theology of the Body, he gives a better explaination of this better than me.