Pope Could Soon Say ‘I Do’ to Married Priests–and Open a Schism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why on Earth would that cause a schism? There are married priests already. In fact one of my oldest friends is the daughter of a Catholic priest. She’s a member of a pretty small club!
 
Yeah, no “schism.” This rule is not dogmatic. Fake news by uninformed writers.
 
I fear schism but not because of this. Though married priests would be a disaster.
 
IdaCatholic said:
I fear schism but not because of this. Though married priests would be a disaster.
Click to expand...
Why not let the Vicar of Christ and the people in positions of legitimate authority decide this?
Realize that there are regions in Mexico and South America where there are 20,000 Catholics per 1 priest. If people are expected to live a sacramental life of grace, they have a right to the sacraments, and if exceptions are made for married priests is made, then it is a good thing. There are plenty of married priests in the Latin Rite already, as Pope Benedict XVI allowed married Anglican priest converts to become Catholic priests. What´s more, the married clergy in the Eastern Rite is not a disaster.
 
Yeah… all these writers predicting schism between Rome and conservative bishops are off their rocker. There’s disagreement but nothing approaching schism. The Germans on the other hand…
 
stpurl said:
Get back to us when the proportion of married priests in the Latin Catholic Church is anything other than infinitesimal.
Click to expand...
If a poster has suggested that married priests in the Latin Catholic Church would be a disaster, I would not have responded. As a Byzantine Catholic. I am happy to report - without any waiting for anything occur in the Latin Catholic Church - that married Catholic priesthood has not been a disaster. Neither has it been a disaster for Eastern and Oriental Orthodox or any other Apostolic Christian Churches that I am aware of.

It is is unclear why it woudl be a disaster for Latins, but I am happy to leave that to them. I would only ask, however, that they show a proper respect for the experience of other sui juris Churches in the Catholic communion that have other traditions.
 
Yeah, something like this won’t cause a schism. Many people, clergy included, would be very unhappy about this as it would probably weaken one of the pillars of the Latin priesthood, but no one would go into schism over it.

As others have mentioned, the closest thing we might see to a schism in the near future is the German synod coming up. Even with that though, I doubt there would be a formal schism, where they form an entirely different church, but rather there would be a situation where you have a Catholic Church in one country that follows one set of doctrines, and another one with another set of doctrines, but the churches are still technically “Catholic”. The situation would just be allowed to persist indefinitely without remedy.
 
Last edited:
The few married priests we have are not a disaster. Regardless of our opinions on the effectiveness of a priest with a family. But the idea that the amazon problem is solved or even helped with married priests is what would be a disaster. Our Church stems from missionary work. That is how we spread the gospel, that is how we grew into the “New World” and that is how the Amazon was introduced to Jesus. There is no denying the shortage of priests in the world. But the usage of those priests and the encouragement of vocations is what needs addressing. Is the problem in the Amazon helped with married priests? Is the answer to these places where Catholicism is in peril a change to the priesthood? Historically it hasn’t been. What was encouraged and ordered by the Church was a missionary focus. That is why we have cities called San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, St Augustine, Corpus Christi, Etc. Is it worth it for the confusion it will sow in the universal Church? Will the bandaid cure the wound? I don’t think so, and I think it will be a disaster. And I think the bandaid will infect other vulnerable parts of the Church.
I live in a very very comfortable area of the world. Our diocese has a shortage of priests. But look at how we use them. There are 2 at the local university. 2 in every parish in the metropolitan area, etc. Many of our priests are not native home grown priests. We have many from Africa, many from latin america, many from Europe. Why doesn’t the Amazon have that?
 
I think a lot of people fear losing the gift of celibacy. Maybe they are right, maybe they are not, but celibacy is just a practice and or discipline and allowing married priests should not cause schism and is not heretical.
 
Woodyl57 said:
I think a lot of people fear losing the gift of celibacy. Maybe they are right, maybe they are not, but celibacy is just a practice and or discipline and allowing married priests should not cause schism and is not heretical.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Yet it should be limited and only in special circumstances. The call from Scripture remains. There’s a reason why the Latin Church boldly Christianized the earth, and that is because they were free from family responsibilities, children and having to please a wife.

An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. -1 Cor. 7.32-34
 
IdaCatholic said:
The few married priests we have are not a disaster.
Click to expand...
Who is the “we” that you are talking about?
I am from a tradition in which married clergy has been the norm from time immemorial.
The only disaster to report is the strife that accompanied the imposition of celibacy in the US. Fortunately that misguided imposition has been abandoned.
Woodyl57 said:
I think a lot of people fear losing the gift of celibacy.
Click to expand...
Celibacy is a cherished part of the monastic tradition in the East.
 
I agree. I am not in favor of removing the discipline in the Latin rite, but do not believe it would be grounds for a schism. I am concerned a lot about many other questions being asked around different parts of the western world concerning things like women’s ordination and laxity in different areas of morality where many people do not see a difference between them and changing celibacy practices, etc.
 
Perhaps your tradition can send some of these priests to the Amazon. Do you have a presence there?
 
I think a celibate male clergy is preferable in many ways.

One such advantage is that it makes the church harder to infiltrate. The recent permissiveness of homosexually active priests notwithstanding.
 
IdaCatholic said:
married priests would be a disaster.
Click to expand...
I don’t see why? The Eastern Orthodox Churches have married priests and it has been working out well. The wife of the priest helps out by greeting people after Divine Liturgy. The first Pope, St. Peter was a married man. Listening to you, one might think that Jesus made a mistake when he chose a married man to be the Pope of the Catholic Church.
Gab123 said:
The call from Scripture remains.
Click to expand...
Jesus called St. Peter to be Pope. Also, how many of the other Apostles were married men? Generally, the only apostle known to be unmarried was St. John. Even St. Paul was married according to Clement of Alexandria and St. Ignatius of Antioch. (However some say Paul was not married).
See: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Christian Cochini.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top