More married priests into RCC?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fabio_rocha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fabio_rocha said:
nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/married-roman-catholic-priests-are-testing-a-tradition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

More and more we see pastors from other Christian churches becoming RC priests due to Vatican II ecumenism. Doesn’t this concern anyone?
Click to expand...
I think the issue is again with the anecdotal evidence rather than evaluating the situation from the general point of view.

The idea that a single priest can be more committed to the parish (if he so chose to) is a truth. Why? Because the man has more time to himself and no responsibilities toward wife or kids. The married priest has at least those commitments to deal with.

The reason why he performance of both types are looking equal is because most of the celibate priests aren’t doing a good job. If the celibate priest has fixed hours, lots of days for himself, then that just gets reduced to the married priesthood. So the issue is not that the married priesthood performance is as good as the celibate BUT, the celibate priesthood performance is weak as the married priesthood.

The fact that IF the celibate priest was actually committed to his parish, then he can do more for it compared to a married priest, cannot be debated.
 
fabio_rocha said:
nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/married-roman-catholic-priests-are-testing-a-tradition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

More and more we see pastors from other Christian churches becoming RC priests due to Vatican II ecumenism. Doesn’t this concern anyone?
Click to expand...
Why would it? Married priests in the Catholic Church are nothing new. Besides, the “Vatican II ecumenism” you’re talking about is bringing entire flocks and parishes into the Catholic Church and from what I’ve seen, they are true, faithful Catholics. That thing you refer to as “Vatican II ecumenism” is true ecumenism, that is, bringing people into the true Church.

So why should their married priests bother you at all?
 
Eufrosnia said:
The idea that a single priest can be more committed to the parish (if he so chose to) is a truth. Why? Because the man has more time to himself and no responsibilities toward wife or kids. The married priest has at least those commitments to deal with.
Click to expand...
However, when people get together after Mass, it is a nice touch when the wife of the priest greets and socialises with the parishoners and the newcomers to the parish.
 
fabio_rocha said:
nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/married-roman-catholic-priests-are-testing-a-tradition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

More and more we see pastors from other Christian churches becoming RC priests due to Vatican II ecumenism. Doesn’t this concern anyone?
Click to expand...
Doesn’t concern me. Wasn’t the first Pope married?

I have a great deal of respect and admiration for anyone who chooses to be unmarried in order to focus on a religious vocation; however, I have a great deal of respect for anyone who can do both too. If it was okay with Jesus and it’s okay with the Vatican today, I don’t know what makes me think I am any more intelligent or have any greater authority to come up with a different conclusion.
 
Eufrosnia said:
The fact that IF the celibate priest was actually committed to his parish, then he can do more for it compared to a married priest, cannot be debated.
Click to expand...
Please share with us your evidence to support the claim that it “cannot be debated.”
 
I have zero issues with ministers from other faiths joining the fullness of Truth.

I have zero issues with people being ordained after proper formation while married, just as our Eastern brothers do.

I have zero issues with celibacy in the Western Church.

The practice of married ministers coming over and being ordained is not a Vatican II thing, it happened before.

Nor has it anything to do with ecumenism. It’s a common sense thing; someone who converts to the Truth and has a Phd in theology and experience with pastoral care is a good candidate for the priesthood, regardless if he is married or not.
 
fabio_rocha said:
nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/married-roman-catholic-priests-are-testing-a-tradition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

More and more we see pastors from other Christian churches becoming RC priests due to Vatican II ecumenism. Doesn’t this concern anyone?
Click to expand...
No, I’m overjoyed!
Angel_Gabriel said:
What about it troubles you? I have no problems with a married priesthood. It’s an ancient practice and I think alot of good can come of it 🙂
Click to expand...
Me too!

Also, I would love to read the book the priest is writing!
 
Boulder257 said:
Please share with us your evidence to support the claim that it “cannot be debated.”
Click to expand...
Well its logical. Lets take the criterion of time available for ones commitment.

The married priest has to divide that time to take care of his wife and children. The celibate priest has all the time to himself.

What you are asking is like “Why do you say that the two people with equal production capabilities produce more compared to the one who works less”. Its just logically true. The only reason why it won’t be true is if the person who works extra time doesn’t actually do anything with that time.
 
Melchior said:
Nor has it anything to do with ecumenism. It’s a common sense thing; someone who converts to the Truth and has a Phd in theology and experience with pastoral care is a good candidate for the priesthood, regardless if he is married or not.
Click to expand...
Then why don’t they use that same criterion for those already in the Church? I am sure there are many married men who have superior expertise to many who are actually priests in the Church. So I don’t see it as just common sense. There is certainly more to it.
 
The assumption that only unmarried men can be ordained is a discipline, not a dogma or doctrine.

The fact that priests may not marry after ordination is a dogma not a discipline.

The welcoming into the one true church of individuals seeking the truth, or entire congregations (like in the case of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham and its planned paralells in other countries) is true eccumenism. Asking seperated of other traditions Christians to renounce Heresy, and rejoin the True Church. What’s wrong with enabling them to rejoin with those traditions which are not incompatible with the True Faith.
 
Eufrosnia said:
Then why don’t they use that same criterion for those already in the Church? I am sure there are many married men who have superior expertise to many who are actually priests in the Church. So I don’t see it as just common sense. There is certainly more to it.
Click to expand...
If someone is a Roman Catholic, then they are bound by our millennial practice of admitting only single men to priestly formation.

But if someone comes in from outside the Church, having the requisite training and experience for priesthood – as well as a wife; why should the Church not make use of such a one?

Exceptions neither prove nor disprove a rule. As someone said, the process is not automatic. Both rule and exception are for the good of the Church.

ICXC NIKA
 
Eufrosnia said:
Well its logical. Lets take the criterion of time available for ones commitment.

The married priest has to divide that time to take care of his wife and children. **The celibate priest has all the time to himself. **
Click to expand...
Yes, because the celibate priest is also an orphan. No parents. No brothers or sisters. And certainly, no friends.

Maybe not as logical as you thought.
 
Eufrosnia said:
Then why don’t they use that same criterion for those already in the Church? I am sure there are many married men who have superior expertise to many who are actually priests in the Church. So I don’t see it as just common sense. There is certainly more to it.
Click to expand...
Because the ministers in question have been in active ministry running churches for several years, and have received similar formation.

I’ve heard some Anglican ministers who sound exactly Catholic, and they then converted. I wouldn’t turn down their services if God calls them to the priesthood.

Of course; God doesn’t call the qualified, He qualifies the called. If these guys are called, they be called and we shouldn’t stop them.
 
maryjk said:
Yes, because the celibate priest is also an orphan. No parents. No brothers or sisters. And certainly, no friends.

Maybe not as logical as you thought.
Click to expand...
The celibate priest is no orphan - he has parents and brothers, nieces and nephews. And as many friends as he cares to make. One of our priests went on vacation with my family and rented a beach house with us several times. But even so, this claim would not help argue against a celibate priest having more time for his duties. It does require a large sacrifice, but it does at least achieve that end.

There are reasons for priestly celibacy that do in fact make sense, but of course there are advantages to the other side as well. I tend to think that the balance favors celibacy, but there is no need to pretend that the opposing view is entirely without merit.

In terms of our converts however - why worry? Celibacy is the Church’s discipline which it can waive at will, and if it decides that what should be true most of the time need not apply in a specific case because other considerations come out on top for a particular person, then so be it. Then discipline will hold as long as it is deemed a good idea.

As a side note, I am amused by there being a influx of Anglicans into the ordinariate, driven at least partially by belief in traditional theology and morals, and the news headline is “More Married Priests.” I mean, come on, way to miss the point.
 
maryjk said:
Yes, because the celibate priest is also an orphan. No parents. No brothers or sisters. And certainly, no friends.

Maybe not as logical as you thought.
Click to expand...
The usual tradition is that a priest is chosen from a family with siblings. The siblings are supposed to take care of the parents. The priest is supposed to dedicate himself to his work.

It is pretty logical but as you can see, you are only bringing up corner cases like “what if he has to take care of his parents” or “what is he can’t work long hours due to a medical condition” etc. These are just exceptions. The general rule is based on what is logical. Now the exception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top