Priesthood Celibacy Poll (Reworded for Clarity)

[buffalo]

Keep praying for vocations. Tell your children about vocations as a worthy choice. One cannot complain about vocations if they are not presenting the option correctly to their own children.

Does anyone here feel that the last 40 years of dissent and low vocations will cease to be a problem as the dissenters retire?

 

[Daria]

Greg_McPherran:

I see your point however, the Church is currently giving dissenters what they want perhaps because there are not enough priests to replace them if removed.

I don’t think this premise is accurate.

Greg_McPherran:

Fr. Greeley encourages Catholics that they can vote pro-abortion.

Technically, I think all he said was that Catholics can vote for Kerry without sinning. That’s consistent with what I’ve heard Cardinal George (his bishop) say, and there’s no way the Vatican considers Cardinal George someone who should be removed. (This isn’t a defense of everything Fr. Greeley says and does.)

Greg_McPherran:

I think it would be wise to replace them with obedient celibate or married men (assuming priestly training of course) like those on EWTN or here on Catholic Answers.

This assumes they have vocations, and I haven’t seen anything from them indicating that they believe they are called.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Daria,

Originally Posted by Greg_McPherran
I see your point however, the Church is currently giving dissenters what they want perhaps because there are not enough priests to replace them if removed.

<Daria: I don’t think this premise is accurate.>

I think it is accurate. Do you have any other suggestions as to why dissent is tolerated?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_McPherran
Fr. Greeley encourages Catholics that they can vote pro-abortion.

<Daria: Technically, I think all he said was that Catholics can vote for Kerry without sinning.> Yes, that is encouraging Catholics not to worry about not voting pro-life. This is the same as encouraging them that they can vote pro-abortion if they wish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_McPherran
I think it would be wise to replace them with obedient celibate or married men (assuming priestly training of course) like those on EWTN or here on Catholic Answers.

<Daria: This assumes they have vocations, and I haven’t seen anything from them indicating that they believe they are called.>

My point was not that these particular men should necessarily be priests, but rather that men of that obedience would make good priests.

Thank You,
Greg

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Darcee,

darcee:

The problems we are seeing in the church are the work of decades… going back to the 1940s. To change again may well take as much time.

I think any toleration of dissent that delays Jesus’ mission needs to be considered very seriously by bishops as a possible sin of omission. Read the Bishops report. Apathy can also be a sin.

People in dissenting areas have to wait 50 years before Catholicism is represented properly for them? What about the loss in spiritual growth? How are we to explain this to Jesus? How could Frs. McBrien and Greeley be leading people to a deep relationship with Jesus? In fact, they may even be serving Satan. I’d rather have a married priest than one serving Satan - this is not even something I have to think about.

A priest is to help lead a person into a deep mystical relationship of love and truth with Jesus - not speculate that He had a wife!!!

It’s funny, we will allow a celibate priest to talk about Jesus possibly having a wife, but we won’t allow married priests - most ironic don’t you think?

Isn’t our stance on this a bit hypocritical? Jesus warned the Pharisees about straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. Do you know what that expression means?

Thank You,
Greg

 

[darcee]

It’s funny, we will allow celibate priests to talk about Jesus possibly having a wife, but we won’t allow married priests - most ironic don’t you think?

No because it is two completely different things. You have not spoken to even one of the objections to married priest… you seem to think it is a cure all for dissension… it is not. The problems the church is seeing are not caused by not having married priest creating married priest will therefore not solve the problem.

Jesus warned the Pharisees about straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. Do you know what that expression means?

:ehh:

Yes… do you know what “Not being able to see the forest for the trees” means? You seem intent on the idea that married men as priests would solve all social ills. (from your post #12) and yet you don’t address the problems that would be caused by married priests nor do you take seriously the well founded objections to them.

-D

 

[Brendan]

Well, it will help the Eastern Churches, which have long been denied their tradition of married parish pastors.

So I voted yes.

I really don’t see how it can help the Latin Church, as it is not our tradition.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Darcee,

darcee:

Yes… do you know what “Not being able to see the forest for the trees” means?

Yes, I am open to that possibility that I am not seeing this properly. However, I also think Scripture may not support so tight a restriction on married priests. I can see encouraging celibacy, but I can’t see such a narrowness of the requirement - this sense of narrowness regarding celibacy doesn’t seem to be the spirit of Scripture - I could be wrong. Paul says a bishop must be the husband of one wife. I don’t see how we go from that to a strict requirment of celibacy. I am not saying there is not an explanation, I just have trouble seeing this at this point. I am genuine to my sense of truth and I avoid having my own personal biases. As you know, we all need to look inside to see if we are motivated by biases that are not grounded in truth.

darcee:

yet you don’t address the problems that would be caused by married priests nor do you take seriously the well founded objections to them.

I think I have responded to objections (e.g. families, giving in) if you look at all my posts in this thread.

Do you at least agree with the possiblity that more married priests might help advance the mission of Jesus? Or are you determined beyond reasonable doubt that it is not a good idea?

Thank You,
Greg

 

[Daria]

Greg–

First, I really don’t think you’ve responded to the likely complications and problems that people have brought up.

Greg_McPherran:

Do you have any other suggestions as to why dissent is tolerated?

I think it’s just because ordination is for life and it’s not an easy thing to remove people.

In any event, I don’t think getting rid of the celibacy requirement would make a significant difference in the number of priests, except maybe right at the beginning. Certainly not one that would be worth getting rid of the significance of celibacy and the implicit statement that secular society was right about it.

Think about it–most people seem to feel a calling prior to the time that people get married these days. If you think you have a calling but reject it, since you are unwilling to be celibate, what does that say about your willingness to follow the Church on everything else, if the celibacy obligation was removed?

As it happens, I do know some men who realized the call later, but they had remained unmarried, perhaps because of the calling, even if they didn’t realize it yet.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Daria:

First, I really don’t think you’ve responded to the likely complications and problems that people have brought up.

I think these complications are a catch 22. If the world was subjected to Jesus the whole concept of having a job and family life outside the Church would be different. All human activity and work would be part of the work of Church. The needs for money etc. would be different because all would be unselfishly working for the good of all the Church. The problem is, things are so far from this vision that we have lost sight of it. Did you see the Bishops report that I linked to?

Daria:

Think about it–most people seem to feel a calling prior to the time that people get married these days. If you think you have a calling but reject it, since you are unwilling to be celibate, what does that say about your willingness to follow the Church on everything else, if the celibacy obligation was removed?

Obedience is obedience, married or not.

Greg

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I wish to warn that the subject matter of this post deals with issues of pedophilia, homosexuality, and rape. No graphic details, just statistics, but I wouldn’t want anyone to be unnecessarily upset. It might also upset a couple of “myths” about child sex abuse and rape. It is not meant to be provocative, disrespectful, or prurient.

Another objection to married priests:
Some people think that it’s the celibacy aspect that caused the sexual abuse.
But in fact, the majority of pedophiles are MARRIED MEN. (according to the DSM-IV, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, volume 4).
If there is a pedophilia crisis in the church, opening up the priesthood to married men would INCREASE pedophile abuse.
Some other people think that the sexual abuse is more homosexual in nature, in that the majority of the abused were post pubertal males by male priests.
If THAT is the case, opening the priesthood up to married men would not “solve” the fact that homosexual men could be admitted as well, as has been the case, apparently. See also above, that opening up the priesthood to married men would statistically speaking INCREASE the level of PEDOPHILIA abuse.

Remember, children aren’t abused because celibate priests “can’t have women, so they settle for men/boys/kids”.
And women aren’t raped because they ask for it, or provoke it. (Yep, that 6 month old baby and that 85 year old granny were just too tempting. Uh-huh).

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Well the situation is such that a priest at the top Catholic University in the country thinks Jesus might have been married.

Scripture does not seem to intend quite the rigid black and white narrowness of cleibacy that we have today. It seems that celibacy should be more a matter of personal holines but nothing that can be Church legislated to such an extent as we do now.

I also think that since it is related to practice and not doctrine, that the Church is not guaranteed freed from error as for teachings on faith and morals.

That’s actually a good question. I don’t think this practice falls in the scope of infallibility, does it? Is it possible we could be making a slight mistake by having such rigid requirements regarding celibacy?

I’d think it might be better to loosen celibacy a bit since it has no inherent moral requirement anyway, and tighten up on moral reuirements such as assent to Church teachings, pro-life etc.

The arguments for celibacy seem to be related to personal holiness and practical needs of Church day to day operations. This is important, true. However, I think we are too lax on the actual moral requirements and I think it makes more sense to focus on these. I consider these more important than celibacy.

Greg

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Greg_McPherran:

Well the situation is such that a priest at the top Catholic University in the country thinks Jesus might have been married.

Just wanted to make sure people know that I do not intend this to mean that Fr. McBrien might be right. My point was to show that a faithful married priest would not say such things about Jesus, especially on national TV.

 

[Daria]

Greg_McPherran:

Scripture does not seem to intend quite the rigid black and white narrowness of cleibacy that we have today. It seems that celibacy should be more a matter of personal holines but nothing that can be Church legislated to such an extent as we do now.

The Pope disagrees, of course. You seem to be saying that the Church teaching and practice on the matter conflicts with the Bible, which I completely disagree with. (It also sounds rather like a Protestant argument.) Just because it’s a discipline and not dogma, and the Church can change the discipline should it no longer be in the best interest of the Church does not mean that the Church is saying that the pratice might be based on a total misunderstandinfg of the Bible, as you seem to be arguing.

Greg_McPherran:

I’d think it might be better to loosen celibacy a bit since it has no inherent moral requirement anyway, and tighten up on moral reuirements such as assent to Church teachings, pro-life etc.

Why is this an either/or? Priests are already supposed to assent. Someone who is only willing to be a priest if he doesn’t have to be celibate does not seem more likely to assent to me.

Moreover, there is a moral relevance to celibacy as this Pope (among others) has consistently pointed out. It’s in imitation of Christ’s love for the Church. It’s a sign of the future when there will be no marriage. And–a factor which I think is hugely important in our US culture–it’s an example that sex is not the be-all end-all and that human beings are not enslaved to a sex drive. Important also since we are all called to be chaste and spend various times of our life unmarried.

That last bit is behind the arguments that I see for ending priestly celibacy in light of the scandals. People who make the argument seem to assume that people who don’t have sex regularly will become perverted. That celibacy is impossible. It is a dumb argument, IMO, but seems to be enormously pervasive.

So it’s very closely related to the moral questions, especially arguments made by dissenters (and non Catholics) re: pre-marital sex, divorce and remarriage, contraceptives, and even abortion. And for me, the overall view of what a human being is and human dignity.

Now you say,

Greg_McPherran:

If the world was subjected to Jesus the whole concept of having a job and family life outside the Church would be different.

This has nothing to do with married priests. It’s basically saying that if things were perfect we wouldn’t have any problems. Sure, but having married priests isn’t going to make things perfect. Due to the complications that have been brought up, as well as the fact that it would look like the Church was backing down from the long-held teachings about humanity in light of the scandals, it would make things worse.

Greg_McPherran:

Obedience is obedience, married or not.

Right, but someone who only is willing to become a priest when things are changed to make it more consistent with other “jobs” and to allow his life to be more like worldly expectations is hardly likely to be more obediant than those who are becoming priests today.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Daria,

Thank you for your interesting thoughts.

Daria:

You seem to be saying that the Church teaching and practice on the matter conflicts with the Bible, which I completely disagree with. (It also sounds rather like a Protestant argument.) Just because it’s a discipline and not dogma, and the Church can change the discipline should it no longer be in the best interest of the Church does not mean that the Church is saying that the pratice might be based on a total misunderstandinfg of the Bible, as you seem to be arguing.

Peter told Jesus, where else can I go? You have the words of eternal life. I was raised a Catholic and I am convinced of the correctness of Catholic theology and I have seen the errors in Protestant theology. There is no place else on earth to go, better than the Catholic Church. At the same time, mature Catholics who fully respect and obey the magisterium are welcome to make suggestions about matters that do not relate to doctrine of faith and morals. This can be done without being labeled a Protestant. My children obey me, but they know they can certainly come talk to me from the heart without me responding in a hurtful way to them (I hope ).

I think Catholics are sensitive to Protestants and others who can’t wait to find some fault with the Catholic Church. For this reason, I think we overreact when a sincere Catholic suggests that we may have a slight error of practice in one area. We are not called not to think, but rather to think as active participants who care about the Church. Sometimes “employees” of a company can see what’s going on about some things better than the “managers” - if you ever worked at a company you know what I mean. I believe that we are to raise our minds in service of Jesus and use our intelligence in His service.

Yes, I think we may have a discipline whose purpose is no longer being served. This happens in organizations. A rule is made for a certain purpose. When the circumstances for the purpose disappear, people forget to look at the rule. I also think that although Scripture recommends and encourages celibacy, it does not narrow it to such a black and white extent. I think the Church may have narrowed the requirement so tightly even knowing that it may be more restrictive than Scripture because the circumstances seemed to call for it.

I also admit that I could be wrong but I have not been convinced otherwise. So therefore I question it, I don’t even disagree per se, I just question it. It is perfectly legitimate and moral for a Catholic to lovingly and respectfully question (or even disagree) on a an area related to practice (not infallible doctrine).

Daria:

Right, but someone who only is willing to become a priest when things are changed to make it more consistent with other “jobs” and to allow his life to be more like worldly expectations is hardly likely to be more obediant than those who are becoming priests today.

No, what I am saying is that placing a priority on moral requirements over changeable practice may advance the mission of Jesus so that the result will be a Church of less selfish married people in general who understand better that even in marriage our lives are ordered to God.

One person posted a thread called “Are we serious?”

This posed the same question. If Catholics are so serious, why do so many vote pro-choice? This and the other issues I have mentioned make us aware of the need to focus on priorities. We have to correct our own problems before we can transform the world.

Jesus said to get the log out of our own eye before you get the speck out of other’s. If we have theology professor at the top Ctaholic university telling the world that Jesus’ may have had a wife, then we certainly can’t expect to transform the rest of the world - can we?

Thanks Daria! More thoughts welcomed!

Greg

 

[Greg_McPherran]

continued…

I think the Church might do well the consider what I am saying. Again, I could be wrong, but I am not convinced. And this question I raise, is perfectly within my rights and practice as a Roman Catholic. This question in no way crosses the lines into Protestantism. If I advocated disobedience or questioned doctrine, that would be one thing, but questioning a practice while obeying is certainly valid and respectable for a Catholic. People are just so jumpy because of the attacks on the Church in other areas.

In fact if you have seen my other posts, I have defended our Catholic faith against Protestant attacks on doctrine. I would also never vote for a pro-choice candidate. I fully stand with Church teachings on contraception, and in fact have been very unhappy about the dissent on this in my area.

If the Church stays with celibacy as they are now, then I advocate nothing but obedience as I do now. I just respectfully raise it as a question that’s all.

Greg

 

[legeorge]

QUOTE=Greg_McPherran]Here are some possible ideas. The pastors could generally be celibate priests and the additional priests could be married or celebate. This would allow a married priest to help by saying a weekend mass and help in other ways, e.g. CCD without taking too much from his family life. Married priests could also work with their wives and other families to help coordinate Church social and other events and what pastor would not appreciate this?

Why would these people have to be priests to help teach CCD, train altar servers, coordinate church functions, etc.???

Again, I still support a larger percentage of celibate priests. However, there are some very exceptional married Catholic men who are completely obedient to the magisterium. Some of the men on EWTN and here on Catholic Answers are examples. I would much prefer a sermon from them, than a priest involved in VOTF or who doesn’t support voting pro-life or other Church teachings.

You seem to forget that these more traditional Catholics are also against married priests. Also, they would not want to leave their families for years and years of study to become priests. Those who are obedient to the magisterium are those that embrace the teachings of the Church ( like the celibate priesthood). Are you going to try to convince them that their current vocations as husbands, fathers, and apologists aren’t enough?

 

[Brendan]

Greg_McPherran:

Scripture does not seem to intend quite the rigid black and white narrowness of cleibacy that we have today. It seems that celibacy should be more a matter of personal holines but nothing that can be Church legislated to such an extent as we do now.

I also think that since it is related to practice and not doctrine, that the Church is not guaranteed freed from error as for teachings on faith and morals.
.

Greg

Greg,

First of all, Celibacy is not really even legislated. It is forced on no one.

If the Church feels that, in general, only men who take a vow of Celibacy are to be Ordained in the Roman Church, that is her perogative. Jesus Himself said that celbacy is a gift that should be accepted by those who can, and Paul said that the celibate man is the most righteous.

As far a being, “infallable”. I don’t think anyone said it was. The Church certainly has ordained maried men, and married clergy are most common parish pastors in the Eastern Catholic Churches. It is de fide that the Sacrament of Holy Orders can be applied to married men. No one doubts that.

Celibacy is in the same class as fasting during days of Lent. Unlike infalliable doctrines, the Church has the authority from God to change those at any time. But that does not mean she should.

Even in the Eastern Catholic Churches which have a married clergy, a celibacy is regarded as the higher calling, which is true. It more closely resembles our state in heaven (“neither given or taken in marriage”)

If my priest is going to be *‘in persona Christi’ * for me, I’d like him as close to Christ as I can get

 

[Greg_McPherran]

legeorge:

Why would these people have to be priests to help teach CCD, train altar servers, coordinate church functions, etc.???

The wouldn’t. As priests they could teach properly in homilies and encourage the faithful to obey in ways that some celibates are not encouraging and are in fact dissenting. Have you seen my previous posts? I have made this point, yet it seems to be ignored. Read my previous posts about other points also.

legeorge:

Are you going to try to convince them that their current vocations as husbands, fathers, and apologists aren’t enough?

Not at all, in fact I think not allowing married priests may be part of what is isolating the Church from society. I think that for many Catholics, the Church is where you go on Christmas and for weddings and funerals, but you can ignore some teachings if you want, and don’t always need to attend mass. Allowing obedient married priests is good compared to these problems IMO. Read all my posts in this thread.

Greg

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Brendan:

First of all, Celibacy is not really even legislated. It is forced on no one.

If the Church feels that, in general, only men who take a vow of Celibacy are to be Ordained in the Roman Church, that is her perogative.

That’s really kind of a clever way argument around the fact that a married man is indeed forced not to have the option of becoming a priest.

Brendan:

If my priest is going to be *‘in persona Christi’ *for me, I’d like him as close to Christ as I can get

Excatly! That’s my point! Does no one see this? Who is closer to Christ, a dissenting celibate or an obedient married?

Thanks for your thoughts, Brandon.

 

[legeorge]

Greg_McPherran:

The wouldn’t. As priests they could teach properly in homilies and encourage the faithful to obey in ways that some celibates are not encouraging and are in fact dissenting. Have you seen my previous posts? I have made this point, yet it seems to be ignored. Read my previous posts about other points also.

Not at all, in fact I think not allowing married priests may be part of what is isolating the Church from society. For many Catholics the Church is where you go on Christmas and for weddings and funerals, but you can ignore some teachings if you want and don’t always need to attend mass. This is the reality for many Catholics. Allowing obedient married priests is good compared to these problems IMO. Read all my posts in this thread.

Greg

I have been reading them and I still don’t think that persons who are already married with children and are obedient to the Church would really want to become priests. So this argument you posed about excellent examples of Catholics living the faith (like those on CA and EWTN) becoming priests wouldn’t really pan out. Why would a man who is a father and husband want to go to school for 7-8 years to become a priest? What would his family do for survival? Do you want the wives to go out and support the families so the husbands can study to be priests? I understand all your arguments but you are not responding to my actual statements. You are just trying to run them over with your persistence. I think I posed legitimate questions that would challenge one of your theories.
I am also not convinced that married priests would solve all of the problems you mentioned. Married priests would not be able to completely remove the influence of the devil on the earth. Married priests could not override free will. I agree that the majority of Catholics these days are not properly catechised and **do ** not conform to all church teachings. But do you really believe that allowing married priests is the only or even best solution to these problems? Have you considered the idea that the problems with Catholics may originate outside rather than inside the Church? Please consider these things thoughtfully before pounding out your response. I have considered your arguments and am only responding to a few points. I am not refuting all of your ideas. I love that there are truly Catholic people who are very excited about their faith and want so much for everyone to know the truth of the Catholic faith. I applaud your enthusiasm.