Pope Francis spoke of being 'dazzled' by girl, possible change of celibacy rule

[Eufrosnia]

From your link;

This is where the Roman Catholic Church always shoots itself in the foot. It says that “Our Eastern Catholics Priests are just as good as our celebate ones”. Then they run out of the only argument in favor of keeping celebacy as the norm i.e. that is it the more effective status for a priest to BETTER serve the people.

In saying that priests without celibacy do just as well, Rome starts to look like someone who is arbitrarily enforcing a celibacy rule on its Church that is really not even needed.

In early days, perhaps the argument might have been ok along the lines of “Those in the East are used to it while we are not”. But nowadays, there is really no East vs West really. People from the West move and live in the East just as much as those from the East in the West. They still hold the same views that they did even in the current society. So the geographical argument fails as well.

I personally feel that to say that “a man as a celibate priests can always be a better priest than if he had become a married priest” is the more reasonable claim to make. There is really no practical evidence against it but logical reasons for it. What people usually say is Fr. Joe is a married priest and he is much better than Fr. Doe. But if Fr. Doe had married, he might have been worse. Also, if Fr. Joe had stayed celebate, he might have been a better priest than what he already is.

So I feel that we should never say that married priests are just as good as celibate priests without at least clarifying that a man as a celibate priest could always do better than if he had been a married priest. In this way, the Roman Catholic Church enforces celibacy because it wants the best out of the priests.

 

[triumphguy]

He clearly stated that it is a discipline that can be changed but he didn’t seem to be personally in favor of doing so. Personally, I can see a lot of pit falls. The first would be that it would severely limit our choice of Bishop candidates, since Bishops cannot be married.

Secondly, Our Lord was celebate and I think that matters a lot. Also most of the Apostles and many of the early Fathers were celebate.

I don’t think it would solve the priestly vocation shortage. I imagine the other Rites of the Catholic Church are experiencing the same shortage.

It would not solve the problems of Sexual excess that have arisen. After all, many of us who live in the lay state as single people must be just as celebate as any priest.

Then, if we must admit a married clergy, what then about married religious communities ? See, you can hardly grant the one and deny the other, can you ?

As far as the loneliness and isolation experienced by some of the clergy, I think that can be solved by the simple expedient of requiring the clergy or at least encouraging them to live in common. There would still be a problem in rural and isolated areas but these could be charted as " mission " territory and open only to the most dedicated among the clergy but not forced on anyone. Linus2nd

Yes you can. They are totally different and not at all connected.

Religious takes vows of chastity whether they are priests or not, as part of belonging to the community. It’s totally different from the vows the priest make. It’s part of the “Rule” set up by the various founders.

 

[thewanderer]

Yeah, this article is definitely putting their own spin on it. When I read the original interview, without media spin, it was pretty clear to me that Pope Francis is not about to open a dialogue on this issue. He clearly said

If, hypothetically, Western Catholicism were to review the issue of celibacy, I think it would do so for cultural reasons (as in the East), not so much as a universal option.

He is rejecting the idea that the Church would change this for pragmatic reasons (ie shortage of priests) but rather that the only reason why the Church would consider doing so is for cultural changes, and even then he specifically says that the Church would not consider it as a universal option. It makes me think about the married protestant ministers, who, when they become Catholic are sometimes allowed to become priests. They come from a protestant background and culture where ministers are married, so, they are allowed to become a priest, even though married, because of cultural reasons. However, it has not been opened as a universal option for the Western Church. Sounds a heck of a lot like what Pope Francis gave as a hypothetical possibility. He is not going to make a universal allowance on this matter. Anyone who speculates otherwise is just engaging in wishful thinking (or maybe scaremongering, depending on which side of the issue they fall on )

 

[LegoGE1947]

Yeah, this article is definitely putting their own spin on it. When I read the original interview, without media spin, it was pretty clear to me that Pope Francis is not about to open a dialogue on this issue. He clearly said

He is rejecting the idea that the Church would change this for pragmatic reasons (ie shortage of priests) but rather that the only reason why the Church would consider doing so is for cultural changes, and even then he specifically says that the Church would not consider it as a universal option. It makes me think about the married protestant ministers, who, when they become Catholic are sometimes allowed to become priests. They come from a protestant background and culture where ministers are married, so, they are allowed to become a priest, even though married, because of cultural reasons. However, it has not been opened as a universal option for the Western Church. Sounds a heck of a lot like what Pope Francis gave as a hypothetical possibility. He is not going to make a universal allowance on this matter. Anyone who speculates otherwise is just engaging in wishful thinking (or maybe scaremongering, depending on which side of the issue they fall on )

I would guess there are modernists who would like Francis to rescind all sorts of things they consider “out of date” ( translated contrary to their modernist agenda)

 

[Sister_Terese]

“In Western Catholicism, some organizations are pushing for more discussion about the issue [celibacy].”

Also from the post.

I’m just asking if anyone knows about the interview more than what MSNBC is telling?

Well, first of all, you should never believe anything that comes from MSNBC…or any other mainstream media outlet. It’s all marxist-communist-atheistic propaganda.

 

[Sister_Terese]

The UGCC has quite a few seminarians (as in they are forced to turn people away)

What do you mean “many of us who live in the lay state as single people must be just as celebate [sic] as any priest”? Celibacy is abstinence from marriage which laity are not forced to adhere to whereas priests absolutely must adhere to this.

I’m not sure I understand your statement. All Catholics are called to live a chaste life regardless of their state in life. Even married couples are called to live chastely. Single people are also called to live a celibate life until they are married. Celibacy is not abstinence from marriage, but abstinence from sexual activity. With that definition in mind, celibacy for priests as well as those single persons is the same. The only difference is that priests take a vow of chastity where single people do not. Sorry if you already knew this and I misunderstood your statement.

 

[pnewton]

You are wrong.

A summary: osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/6532/In-Focus-Facing-a-future-with-fewer-Catholic-prie.aspx

I point out that this study is not of the Catholic Church, but was limited to just one country.
Mark M. Gray, Ph.D. is a CARA research associate and director of CARA Catholic Polls (CCP). His research focuses on trend analyses of Catholic Church data and surveys of the adult Catholic population of the United States.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/20/17386717-pope-francis-spoke-of-being-dazzled-by-girl-possible-change-of-celibacy-rule?lite

The above link is makes it appear as though our Holy Father is open to the subject.

Is the article taking things out of context? Or is the Pope merely talking about celibacy being a discipline that CAN be changed, but likely won’t because it has stood for so long?

I hope this won’t sound like I’m talking down to anybody (I don’t mean to), but having some significant experience with this, I want to warn everybody that you basically can’t trust one darn thing the media says about the Church or the pope. You just can’t. It’s better to ignore what they say and just read the original and complete texts of what the pope says from the Vatican website.

And no, the pope is not open to married priests.

 

[johnmann]

Most journalists don’t know that priestly celibacy is not doctrine. Pope Francis states uncontroversial Catholic teaching. Journalists are shocked and run to the editor.

I read one interesting quote though:

“If, hypothetically, Western Catholicism were to review the issue of celibacy, I think it would do so for cultural reasons (as in the East), not so much as a universal option.”

Not sure what that means. What cultural reasons? Maybe he means it depends on the local circumstances. E.g., African has plenty of vocations. They don’t need to change the rules.

 

[maklavan]

With the influx of married priests from the Anglican dispensation, the argument in favour of celibate priest per se might not survive for much longer. The Anglicans have Religious Orders which practise celibacy under vow,How about looking at the prospect of offering Permanent Deacons the option of priestly ordination? Most of them are of mature age,and no longer raising kids,so no financial hangups.

 

[thewanderer]

Most journalists don’t know that priestly celibacy is not doctrine. Pope Francis states uncontroversial Catholic teaching. Journalists are shocked and run to the editor.

I read one interesting quote though:

Not sure what that means. What cultural reasons? Maybe he means it depends on the local circumstances. E.g., African has plenty of vocations. They don’t need to change the rules.

My understanding was something such as the current situation with married protestant pastors who convert and are allowed to become priests even though they are married. This is because they come from a culture (the protestant culture) where pastors are allowed (and perhaps even sometimes expected?) to marry. From my reading of the quote Pope Francis was specifically saying that he did not agree that the rule should be changed for pragmatic reasons, ie, a shortage of priests.

 

[HollyDolly]

He clearly stated that it is a discipline that can be changed but he didn’t seem to be personally in favor of doing so. Personally, I can see a lot of pit falls. The first would be that it would severely limit our choice of Bishop candidates, since Bishops cannot be married.

Secondly, Our Lord was celebate and I think that matters a lot. Also most of the Apostles and many of the early Fathers were celebate.

I don’t think it would solve the priestly vocation shortage. I imagine the other Rites of the Catholic Church are experiencing the same shortage.

It would not solve the problems of Sexual excess that have arisen. After all, many of us who live in the lay state as single people must be just as celebate as any priest.

Then, if we must admit a married clergy, what then about married religious communities ? See, you can hardly grant the one and deny the other, can you ?

As far as the loneliness and isolation experienced by some of the clergy, I think that can be solved by the simple expedient of requiring the clergy or at least encouraging them to live in common. There would still be a problem in rural and isolated areas but these could be charted as " mission " territory and open only to the most dedicated among the clergy but not forced on anyone. Linus2nd

If the church had married clergy,they could do as the orthodox and eastern catholics do.
While they have married clergy,they also have traditional monasteries and convents where members live in common and are celibate. Those clergy who belong to religious orders like Jesuits,Franciscans, etc. would have to remain celibate. Any priest who wished to marry who was part of a religious order could still be a priest,but he would have to leave the community.If say a,Benedictine,Dominican,Carmelite,they could still belong to the comunity,but as a lay member of the order like many married people like St.Elizabeth of Hungary and others who have done so while married.

 

[TimSpalding]

I point out that this study is not of the Catholic Church, but was limited to just one country.

That is true. I assumed that jwinch2 was primarily concerned with the US. She lists herself as being from Fort Worth.

To get down to it, however, the situation is, if anything bleaker outside the US. The priest/faithful ratio in the US is actually a good deal better than in most of the world. So, for example, the US ratio of 1/1531 contrasts favorably with the Phillipines (2,850), Germany (1456), Brazil (6,615), Uganda (7,079), etc. Average ages tell a similar story. Dublin currently has 46 priests over 80 and only 2 under 35. A study not unlike CARA’s has Australia hitting 1/11,600 by 2025.

Maybe this doesn’t matter. Parts of the word have long had priest ratios far in excess of ours. Their cultures have adapted, with priests doing relatively little direct work with the faithful, but operating as attendants at the “sacramental filling stations.” Americans still expect that priests will do more than that, but, ultimately, that’s the rock-bottom need. For my part, I would regret that it shrink to that.

I hope this won’t sound like I’m talking down to anybody (I don’t mean to), but having some significant experience with this, I want to warn everybody that you basically can’t trust one darn thing the media says about the Church or the pope. You just can’t. It’s better to ignore what they say and just read the original and complete texts of what the pope says from the Vatican website.

And no, the pope is not open to married priests.

The interview with Cardinal Bergoglio is there for all to see. The evil media didn’t dream it up. The now-Pope could have said what you want him to say, that he was “not open to married priests.” He did not say it. He said something much more nuanced and ultimately non-committal. He said “For the moment, I am in favor of maintaining celibacy” and emphasized that it could be changed. The plain meaning of the words cannot be denied. If I said “for the moment, I’m planning to stay home and watch TV tonight” you would not decide that I was “not open” to other options.

If you want my wager, I’d say it was unlikely to happen. Francis has a lot on his plate. He may move the conversation forward on this, but he’s unlikely to dig into this debatable and vexed issue when there are so many easier wins available to him, like clearning up the curia and sidelining the bishops who put the institution ahead of the safety of children.

Well, first of all, you should never believe anything that comes from MSNBC…or any other mainstream media outlet. It’s all marxist-communist-atheistic propaganda

Oy boy.

 

[thewanderer]

The interview with Cardinal Bergoglio is there for all to see. The evil media didn’t dream it up. The now-Pope could have said what you want him to say, that he was “not open to married priests.” He did not say it. He said something much more nuanced and ultimately non-committal. He said “For the moment, I am in favor of maintaining celibacy” and emphasized that it could be changed. The plain meaning of the words cannot be denied. If I said “for the moment, I’m planning to stay home and watch TV tonight” you would not decide that I was “not open” to other options.

Personally, I am of the opinion that what he said was even more nuanced than that. He didn’t** just **say that for now he is for celibacy, he went on to explain that while some people argue against celebacy for pragmatic reasons, he is convinced that if it ever changes it will only change due to cultural reasons and that even then it would not be a universal permission. So, while he is in some respects open to it, and recognizes that it can be changed, he is against a universal permission to ordain married men in the Latin Rite. He is not against certain married individuals be ordained in the Latinn Rite when they come from a culture of married priests, but he is against making it a universal permission. After all, the plain meaning of the words can’t be denied.

 

[TimSpalding]

I think it’s interesting to speculate on just what he means by “cultural reasons.” I’d be interested in others’ interpretation of that phrase.

I speculate that his reference to “as in the east” may be a nod to the notion—very common, but I think largely false—that married priests fit better with the settled, urban life of the Greek east, while the more rugged and rural life of the Latin west favored priests without permanent ties. (This picture will surprise those who think of western Europe as the more settled, or “civilized,” part of the Christendom, but this was certainly not so until relatively recently.)

There are other theories that match eastern and western “culture” to this development, but I’m at a loss to imagine which he’s talking about. Does he simply mean in some countries and not others, but decided on “cultural” rather than “pragmatic” reasons? What reasons would qualify as cultural?* Anyone?

I think it’s undeniable that, if a move is made toward optional celibacy, that it will not include religious priests, as from the Jesuits or Franciscans. A vow of poverty is, obviously, incompatible with having a family, raising kids, etc. And it’s highly unlikely it would be “retroactive.” The east has long allowed married men to become priests. It has never (to my knowledge) allowed priests to marry.

• It’s sometimes said that Africa has such terrible priest/faithful ratios because in much of the continent a man without a wife is a man without respect. I suppose that would qualify as a cultural reason. I don’t find much solace in that reasoning.

 

[babochka]

Then, if we must admit a married clergy, what then about married religious communities ? See, you can hardly grant the one and deny the other, can you ?

Of course you can. In the Christian East, celibacy is typically lived out in a monastic vocation. If the west were to change the discipline of celibacy (and I don’t advocate for that), religious communities would continue to set their own standards for men who wish to join.

 

[Tobias22]

I think it’s interesting to speculate on just what he means by “cultural reasons.” I’d be interested in others’ interpretation of that phrase.

I speculate that his reference to “as in the east” may be a nod to the notion—very common, but I think largely false—that married priests fit better with the settled, urban life of the Greek east, while the more rugged and rural life of the Latin west favored priests without permanent ties. (This picture will surprise those who think of western Europe as the more settled, or “civilized,” part of the Christendom, but this was certainly not so until relatively recently.)

There are other theories that match eastern and western “culture” to this development, but I’m at a loss to imagine which he’s talking about. Does he simply mean in some countries and not others, but decided on “cultural” rather than “pragmatic” reasons? What reasons would qualify as cultural?* Anyone?

I think it’s undeniable that, if a move is made toward optional celibacy, that it will not include religious priests, as from the Jesuits or Franciscans. A vow of poverty is, obviously, incompatible with having a family, raising kids, etc. And it’s highly unlikely it would be “retroactive.” The east has long allowed married men to become priests. It has never (to my knowledge) allowed priests to marry.

• It’s sometimes said that Africa has such terrible priest/faithful ratios because in much of the continent a man without a wife is a man without respect. I suppose that would qualify as a cultural reason. I don’t find much solace in that reasoning.

I think your point on Africa is spot on. I could see him making celibacy optional for that continent. For several reasons.

Would it be retroactive if he made it optional? No, IMO but the young priest at out church asked that very thing during his sermon.

Early bishops were married too in many cases aand in orthodoxy there are some wishing to return to the ancient practice.

I think he will at the least have it studied. Maybe leave it up to the local bishops conferences to decide for their areas.

I think Pope Francis will at least re-evaluate a number of small ‘t’ practices. He is moving quickly and we are in for an interesting time.

The interesting thing the priest said was that the total ban on contraception is not a dogma of the church. Paul VI could have taken the recommendation of the study group and relaxed it. We might see some re-evaluation there too. Not likely but I would not be surprised if it did happen.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Isn’t this technically a discipline too that could theoretically change? After all, Paul writes,

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 3:2[/BIBLEDRB]

I’m not saying that it will change or should change, just that it could, most likely the day after hell freezes over.

Yes, but the discipline was changed for bishops in the East and West. Linus2nd

 

[Crescentinus]

The media thought that the Pope restating the position of the Church is not enough, hence the spin.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Isn’t this technically a discipline too that could theoretically change? After all, Paul writes,

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 3:2[/BIBLEDRB]

I’m not saying that it will change or should change, just that it could, most likely the day after hell freezes over.

That is taken as only married once, i.e. widowers can become bishops (which they can).

Q: How many married Orthodox Bishops are there?
A: Question is invalid married men may not become bishops.