L
legeorge
Guest
Specifically addressing this quote, I think we need to be isolated from secular society. We are to be “in” the world, not “of” the world. The Church *should * stand apart. Again, this is just my opinion.
- Status
M
Melchior
Guest
I am a potential revert so please take this for what it is worth.
I think the problem with much of the Church (Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox) in the U.S. is that it has been feminized. I don’t mean feminine as in strictly female. I mean it as in lacking any masculine character as it historically had and effeminate. Therapy instead of Theology from the pulpit, anthrocentric folk music vs. God centered hymns and chants etc.
I will admit as will many of the more honest folks here that the current Catholic priesthood is far from masculine (there are many exceptions of course). I think one of the ways to re-malculate the church is to ordain some comitted family men to the priesthood. Some of the finest and godly Catholic men I know are also very masculine, in no small part due to their role as husband and father. This is not a gaurantee of masculinity but it certainly could provide the church with some seminarians (after recent scandals have proven) that are not merely running from sexual confusion like many in the late 50’s and 60’s. A partially married priesthood in our culture can only be a good thing. I say in our culture for a reason. Let’s face it we are not in a culture that produces many real men period, married or single.
So a preisthood of married and unmarried clergy, just like in the past, btw, is in my opinion a good thing.
Any corellation between married priests and women or gay priests is a big stretch. One idea comes from Church history and can be and it held by very conservative, orthodox Christians and the other ideas are novel and were never accepted. There is a huge difference.
Also note that Eastern Catholics have a married priesthood and other very conservative denominations have married clergy and it works. The Orthodox, all Evangelicals etc.
Finally the first Pope, St. Peter himself was married. So if he could what arguments against are really valid?
Mel
I think the problem with much of the Church (Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox) in the U.S. is that it has been feminized. I don’t mean feminine as in strictly female. I mean it as in lacking any masculine character as it historically had and effeminate. Therapy instead of Theology from the pulpit, anthrocentric folk music vs. God centered hymns and chants etc.
I will admit as will many of the more honest folks here that the current Catholic priesthood is far from masculine (there are many exceptions of course). I think one of the ways to re-malculate the church is to ordain some comitted family men to the priesthood. Some of the finest and godly Catholic men I know are also very masculine, in no small part due to their role as husband and father. This is not a gaurantee of masculinity but it certainly could provide the church with some seminarians (after recent scandals have proven) that are not merely running from sexual confusion like many in the late 50’s and 60’s. A partially married priesthood in our culture can only be a good thing. I say in our culture for a reason. Let’s face it we are not in a culture that produces many real men period, married or single.
So a preisthood of married and unmarried clergy, just like in the past, btw, is in my opinion a good thing.
Any corellation between married priests and women or gay priests is a big stretch. One idea comes from Church history and can be and it held by very conservative, orthodox Christians and the other ideas are novel and were never accepted. There is a huge difference.
Also note that Eastern Catholics have a married priesthood and other very conservative denominations have married clergy and it works. The Orthodox, all Evangelicals etc.
Finally the first Pope, St. Peter himself was married. So if he could what arguments against are really valid?
Mel
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
Fair enough and I’m just not convinced the other way. My other point was that the restrictiveness of the practice today (that may be more restrictive than Scripture) might be based on circumstances of the world that are not the same today.
The Church teaches with full authority on faith and morals. In matters of practice we may need to be a bit more adaptive to the society in order to more effectively accomplish Jesus’ mission to the world. This web site is a good example of modern evangelization. St. Paul says he is all things to all people.
What I see today is that instead of the Church transforming society, the darkness is affecting the Church from within the clergy in some areas (the many faithful priests an exception). The Church is having good effects on society to be sure, but I think we can do much better. It’s time to “rock and roll” and conquer this pro-abortion, pro-contraception (even among “Catholics”), sexually immoral, materially selfish society, so that all can experience the power of God in their lives. It’s time to immediately stop playing games with dissenters. I’m not talking about excessive harshness with dissenters, but they can no longer be in positions to mislead the faithful in homilies and confessions and if they don’t accept Church teachings, then we still love you but, good-bye.
Read my previous posts and the Bishops report. I laid my case very well. If we still differ that’s fine. I admit I could be wrong, but I still think obedience and teaching with (not against) the Church teachings is more important in a priest that the requirement of celibacy. This combined with that fact that Scripture promotes celibacy but does not seem to make black and white rules about it for priests (bishop must be the husband of one wife…) are my reasons.
Thank You,
Greg
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
Hello and excellent post Melchior,
Melchior:
Melchior:
Greg
I think you are right especially if they obey and promote Church doctrine on faith and morals so we can put an end to the nonsense. One faithful celibate priest in the Boston area says we need to stop playing “footsies” with people. I think we need to stop playing “footsies” with dissenters. He also referred to dissenters as “pathetic” on his radio show.
Thank you very much for pointing that out Melchior, I am a conservative orthodox Catholic.
Greg
M
Melchior
Guest
Thanks for your kind words, Greg.
Would that priest be Fr. Tom DiLorenzo by any chance?
Mel
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
Yes, that’s him! Now there’s a Catholic priest who teaches with the Church! I also appreciate the priests here on CA and EWTN - they are also excellent.
Greg
M
Melchior
Guest
Wow. I didn’t know his broadcast was beyond local. I used to work at the Christian Radio station that first carried (still does) and produces In Season And Out Of Season. The guys voice you hear at the beginning and end is Marl Carey my old boss.
In fact I knew Fr. Tom since I was a teenager through the Pro-Life movement here in Boston. He is an outstanding Pro-Life leader. I am in my 30’s and have not seen him in years.
I can do a pretty good Fr. Tom impersonation. At least my wife thinks so. “Come bahk ta Mothah!” His call to Protestants. Now go watch Prime Time Glick on Comedy Central and tell me Martin Short’s character doesn’t sound just like Fr. Tom with the low/high thing in his voice.
Mel
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
I live in Sharon, MA
A
Anna_Elizabeth
Guest
According to some witnesses, certain sexually immature or conflicted individuals and certain homosexual men appear to have been attracted to the priesthood because they mistakenly viewed the requirement of celibacy as a means of avoiding struggles with their sexual identities. Others may have felt it provided them with “cover” – a ready explanation as to why they were not married.
Anna: Gee, Greg, What a happy future for the women who will be induced to provide the new “cover,” if these people aren’t weeded out early on.
Greg:
In his 1967 encyclical letter, Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, Pope Paul VI empha¬sized this very point: "Those who are discovered to be unfit for physical, psychological or moral reasons should be quickly removed from the path to the priesthood.
Even more interesting, project this: the married priests decide that artificial contraception is “sometimes” OK. Now, having “slightly modified” the procreative part of marriage, here comes the presently popular justification of homosexual “marriage.” “It’s only fair, right?”And we are back to square one, homosexuals in the priesthood, only now with incredible amounts of extra baggage.
Has it occurred to anyone that all these things are components of the dissenters agenda? That those who most feverishly advocate these things could find everything they say they want in ecclesial communities that exist right now? So why not follow where their Lord leads?? Answer: The TV cameras would not follow. Juvenile? Yes.
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
Hi Anna,
Anna Elizabeth:
Plus as I have posted several times, Scripture does not seem to support such a black and white restriction on celibacy. How can a mature person be expected to take responsibility for personal holiness when celibacy (not a moral requirement per se) is an enforced practice, but assent **(a moral requirment) **is not enforced?
This is the cart before the horse. Thank you for the intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut. Please read all my posts.
The Church has the power to correct dissent anytime. What really bothers me is that they don’t. This is a concern to me. I mean something is seriously out of whack in this regard. If I tell a boss at work I won’t obey, I’m fired, and that’s the way it should be. There’s something wierd going on here.
We all Catholics should make sure that we are not subconciously basing our reasoning on a bias related to Church politics than the mission of Jesus. I am not saying anyone is doing that, we just need to remember that Jesus has a mission to the world and this is a top priority over a Church preference of practice. Someone said, we need to see the forest through the trees, I think the Church may need to see that celibacy is less important than the mission of Jesus to the world. Again, I could be wrong, but I think we may be missing the boat a bit here.
I am glad we have many Catholics like you regardless of view on this question.
Greg
Anna Elizabeth:
Yes, the problem is Anna, that like Veritatis Splendor, this statement is just ignored by the dissenters. Give me a combination of obedient celibate pastors and obedient parochial vicars, some of whom are married, over dissenting celibates anyday.
Plus as I have posted several times, Scripture does not seem to support such a black and white restriction on celibacy. How can a mature person be expected to take responsibility for personal holiness when celibacy (not a moral requirement per se) is an enforced practice, but assent **(a moral requirment) **is not enforced?
This is the cart before the horse. Thank you for the intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut. Please read all my posts.
The Church has the power to correct dissent anytime. What really bothers me is that they don’t. This is a concern to me. I mean something is seriously out of whack in this regard. If I tell a boss at work I won’t obey, I’m fired, and that’s the way it should be. There’s something wierd going on here.
We all Catholics should make sure that we are not subconciously basing our reasoning on a bias related to Church politics than the mission of Jesus. I am not saying anyone is doing that, we just need to remember that Jesus has a mission to the world and this is a top priority over a Church preference of practice. Someone said, we need to see the forest through the trees, I think the Church may need to see that celibacy is less important than the mission of Jesus to the world. Again, I could be wrong, but I think we may be missing the boat a bit here.
I am glad we have many Catholics like you regardless of view on this question.
Greg
M
Melchior
Guest
LOL! So I’ll meet you tomorrow morning at Cobb Corner (Maxi’s) for breakfast. I live in Stoughton. Small world! :yup:
When you wrote “CA” I in my denseness thought you were referring to California.
So maybe you can help me find a good parish?
Mel
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
Please excuse me for breakfast. I have some priorities with my family.
I attend mass in Foxboro.
However, let’s stay in contact.
Greg
M
mercygate
Guest
Anna Elizabeth:
Greg_McPherran:
I am a graduate of a non-Catholic seminary of a denomination which has a strong"catholic" wing and has both married and unmarried clergy. During Seminary (not since, thank God) my husband and I were BOTH propositioned individually and as a couple by men AND women; one pair even wanted a threesome. Celibacy looks pretty good to me! And there’s nothing worse than a marriage scandal in the parsonage.
BUT, aside from the sordid practical problems, celibacy for the Kingdom has a deep spiritual component that also contributes to the spiritual support of those who must hew to the chastity of their own condition of life in marriage, in the single state, even as persons with same-sex attraction who cleave to continent chastity for love of our Lord. (God bless 'em!)
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
Hi mercygate,
mercygate:
Have you read all my posts in this thread?
I am grateful to be in the same Church as my fellow Catholics here, regardless of view on this topic.
Best,
Greg
I don’t doubt it, but in fairness, isn’t that as irrelevant to my well-reasoned thesis, as would be someone claiming that celibacy had something to do with other chastity problems? (read the bishops’ report)
Have you read all my posts in this thread?
I am grateful to be in the same Church as my fellow Catholics here, regardless of view on this topic.
Best,
Greg
D
darcee
Guest
Well … how are parishes going to afford to pay their priests enough to raise a family?
Not in five years or so when… apparently everyone will be really Catholic and the coffers full… but NOW?
-D
Not in five years or so when… apparently everyone will be really Catholic and the coffers full… but NOW?
-D
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
Hi Darcee,
Great to hear from you. How are you?
darcee:
Isn’t that what trust in God is all about? Just like a woman considering an abortion, we cannot put earthly reasoning above the transformation of the world. Maybe if some children’s fathers were priests they might be more interested in becoming priests, even celibate ones.
I still don’t insist I am right about married, but if all priests are obedient to God, I think He will bless us. Therefore I don’t see this as an issue.
The married priests can still be much more involved in secular work to care for their families, than celibates. That’s why I recommend celibate pastors. At least the married priests (chosen based on obedience) will give homilies that support Church teachings and publicly teach in support of Church teachings. This is better than what we’re getting now from some priests - of course not referring to the many good ones.
Some married men may not be good candidates it would depend on their circumstances.
How about a wealthy married man whose family was already taken care of and was an obedient man to the Church? Why rule him out?
Greg
Great to hear from you. How are you?
Well, what would we tell a woman considering having an abortion who insists that she and the father of the child can’t afford to raise the child?
Isn’t that what trust in God is all about? Just like a woman considering an abortion, we cannot put earthly reasoning above the transformation of the world. Maybe if some children’s fathers were priests they might be more interested in becoming priests, even celibate ones.
I still don’t insist I am right about married, but if all priests are obedient to God, I think He will bless us. Therefore I don’t see this as an issue.
The married priests can still be much more involved in secular work to care for their families, than celibates. That’s why I recommend celibate pastors. At least the married priests (chosen based on obedience) will give homilies that support Church teachings and publicly teach in support of Church teachings. This is better than what we’re getting now from some priests - of course not referring to the many good ones.
Some married men may not be good candidates it would depend on their circumstances.
How about a wealthy married man whose family was already taken care of and was an obedient man to the Church? Why rule him out?
Greg
M
Melchior
Guest
I was just kidding about the breakfast tomorrow (though I will be happy to in the future, my treat). Made promises to my wife and kids as well.
Mel
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
We should all get together sometime. It is amazing that you are in Stoughton!
If you are considering returning, I think you will like Father McGlaughlin in Foxboro. He’s very friendly and easy to talk to.
Maybe I should do a new poll, how many people from Massachusetts think we should allow married priests? I think we’d have a higher vote in favor.
Best,
Greg
D
darcee
Guest
There are charities in place to help women who need help with a crisis pregnancy… Abortion is intrinsically evil… a celibate priesthood is NOT. To make the parallel you would have to convince us all that a married priesthood is the will of God and thus we should trust in Him on this issue. So far you have only illustrated that you think it is a good idea.
I will propose here that you don’t see any of the real issues with married priests as real issues because you like the idea so much. You might be willing to put the wellfare of women and children on the line to further an experiment in married priests… I don’t think the Church as a whole is so reckless.
We already have a few married priest in non-pastorial roles. They do not make up a large enough group to make the kind of changes you have advocated in other posts.
How are parishes going to afford a priest with a family when they can’t afford to paint their buildings? When bringing in married priest will shake up so many people that attendance AND contributions will likely drop?
-D
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
Of course, of course, I was just making a point related to financial considerations.
Best,
Greg
- Status