Priesthood Celibacy Poll (Reworded for Clarity)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg_McPherran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Greg_McPherran:
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
Click to expand...
Absolutely! We would love that.

What is your church in Foxboro?

You have a PM from me, btw.

Mel
 
I will now take the time to answer this poll, since you have so kindly reworded it.
Priests should not be married for many reasons.
  1. Being a priest is a full time job and they would not have time to commit themselves 100 percent to a spouse and children.
  2. A priest spouse is the church.
  3. Every husband tells their wife their problems, what would happen if someones confession was really bothering him and he repeated it.
  4. When someone (maybe a woman or young girl) came to the door late at night how would his wife feel?
  5. A priests life with the church is a fulltime job, unlike any other a Dr. can have someone fill in for him at any time their stress level is to high. With the shortage of priests we already have who would relieve them.
  6. My final answer is that The Holy Father says.
 
40.png
kmktexas:
Yikes, I didn’t realize I was the first to vote. What power to control 100%.

Greg, I really appreciate the logical way that you presented this. At this point in time, I think that ordaining more married priest would do more harm, than good for the following reasons:
  1. The faithful mostly do not understand the difference between matters of discipline and matters of faith. For your average Catholic in the pews, the question will be “If the Church can change its mind about married priests, why can’t it change its mind about women priests, abortion, birth control, divorce etc.?”
  2. The possibility of a priest going through a messy divorce so soon after the other recent scandals is unthinkable.
  3. Seminary reform is only just beginning and would need to be much further along, especially in terms of moral ethics.
This being said, in 40-50 years, we may be ready.

Also, I think that a procedure for ordaining some (way below your 1/3 number) permanent deacons to the priesthood after many years of faithful service and stable marriage might possibly be helpful in some cases.
Click to expand...
I will now take the time to answer this poll, since you have so kindly reworded it.
Priests should not be married for many reasons.
  1. Being a priest is a full time job and they would not have time to commit themselves 100 percent to a spouse and children.
  2. A priest spouse is the church.
  3. Every husband tells their wife their problems, what would happen if someones confession was really bothering him and he repeated it?
  4. When someone (maybe a woman or young girl) came to the door late at night how would his wife feel?
  5. A priest’s life with the church is a fulltime job, unlike any other. Doctors can have someone fill in for them any time their stress level is to high. With the shortage of priests we already have, who would relieve them?
  6. My final answer is that The Holy Father says.
 
Is Allowing More Married Priests a Good Suggestion to the Magisterium?

I don’t see how the Magisterium is involved in this question. Celibacy is not a teaching of the Catholic Church but a discipline of the Church. Anyway it is something that has already been considered and was decided against.

What is needed are fresh ideas on how to convince parents that they should encourage their children to enter Religious life or consider the Priesthood instead of discouraging them.
 
Br. Rich SFO:
What is needed are fresh ideas on how to convince parents that they should encourage their children to enter Religious life or consider the Priesthood instead of discouraging them.
Click to expand...
Hello,

You have missed the point. What is needed is bishops to do their job and stop playing games with priests like Fr(s) McBrien and Greeley.

I can see problems that have no easy solution. I don’t understand
problems that have an easy solution. Remove dissenting priests,
period. I live in Sharon, MA. I have heard so much dissent here, it’s heartbeaking.

Whether a priest is married is much less important than whether he teaches according to the Church. I think our priorities may be out of whack. The mission of Jesus to subject the world to the Father must take top priority. I think faithful married priests is a good way to advance the mission of Jesus instead of being in a stall pattern for 30 years with dissenters.

See the parish in Sharon MA: www.ourladyofsorrows.net and thoroughly poke around.

Please read all my posts on the topic. There are other reasons also for additional married priests.

Respectfully disagree.

Greg
 
We will have more priests when we as parents and grandparents value the priestly way of life, and teach our children and grandchildren, accordingly. In fact I’m sure that the lack of priestly vocations have more to do with our lack of faith and prayer as a church (USA). Remember the church sees things over centuries not years. The road to heaven is rocky and narrow and few will tred.
 
ourladyofsorrows.net

I see the following links at Our Lady of Sorrows in Shraon are no longer accessible from the home page, but you can still access them:

They have VOTF:
ourladyofsorrows.net/voiceof.htm

Check out the “Feminist Theology Group”:
ourladyofsorrows.net/PastorsPage.htm

I heard a priest at mass say the Church will surely have women priests.

See the Deacon’s thoughts on our Church:
ourladyofsorrows.net/DeaconsPage.htm

Note the discussion of the laity “power”:
ourladyofsorrows.net/tfexhibit7.htm

I am glad to see they are no longer being promoted from the home page.
 
The poll majority are not in favor of additional married priests. I respect my fellow Catholics who voted against and I thank them for their thoughtful reasoning and for participating.
 
I do think there is another issue here. Regardless of how one feels about married priests, it is important to consider who ought to be making this decision. One of the things that drives me crazy is how the Liturgy is so often shaped the convictions of people who have no authority to change to rubrics – there may be great reasons for their modifications, but the point is, it isn’t their decision to make.

Regarding who should be admitted to the priesthood, there may be great arguments for married priests (or there may not), but the point is, we should respect the decisions of those responsible for making the call.
 
I think we should follow our brothers in the Eastern Rite Churches and allow a married man to enter the priesthood. If one is not married when entering he must remain celabate. A married priest can’t become a bishop, or so I have been told. I know I am in the minority but this just my opinion and I have no facts or statistics to back it up, just a gut feel.
 
If the Church allows married priests it will cause great upheaval.

7 “Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, 5 one of one kind and one of another.” (1 Corinthians 7:7) I also do not think that it is right for the Church to allow married priests from other Traditions to become Catholic Priests. I understand that they have been forced to do this because so many have left, but it isn’t fair to the vast majority of priests who are celibate.
 
What’s the big deal? Peter was married. Why can’t we return to the ways of early Christianity?
 
40.png
Andyman1517:
What’s the big deal? Peter was married. Why can’t we return to the ways of early Christianity?
Click to expand...
When people address the question with such flippancy, I have to question whether they even care for an answer.

If you do, why not read this?
 
40.png
bquinnan:
When people address the question with such flippancy, I have to question whether they even care for an answer.

If you do, why not read this?
Click to expand...
Yes, I read that and it well explains why celibacy is good and I also knew well that celibacy is encouraged by Jesus (and St. Paul.)

I raise these points:
  1. I do not see in Scripture that Jesus connects celibacy with the priesthood, rather He seems to propose it for all faithful to consider regardless of their vocation. Jesus also seems to propose it as a matter for each person to discern for themselves.
  2. St. Paul also does not connect celibacy with priesthood per se, but indicates that the celibate can more freely devote his life to God. This could apply to a priest or lay person.
  3. St. Paul also says that a bishop must be the husband of one wife. Of course the word must relates to one wife and we know that Paul is certainly not saying that a bishop must be married. However, this statement of Paul would seem to make it clear that a bishop certainly ***may ***have a wife.
  4. Based on the above 1, 2, 3: celibacy has supernatural value both for the priesthood or laity. However, nowhere is a ***requirement ***for celibacy in the priesthood found.
  5. Also consider the following articles:
Despite evidence that contraception has caused the injury and even death of women, that it has occasioned divorce and that it is often an abortifacient, 75 percent of the priests surveyed favored it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=179494

Men faithful to the Church’s teachings and honestly answering Christ’s call to become priests are often faced with hostility, dismissal and outright persecution. Those who dress in clerics, agree with the magisterium or say the rosary publicly, for example, are marked as “rigid” and determined to be “unfit for the priesthood.”
catholicherald.com/articles/02articles/goodmen.htm

Archbishop Elden Curtiss: … I am personally aware of certain vocations directors, vocations teams and evaluation boards who turn away candidates who do not support the possibility of ordaining women or who defend the Church’s teaching about artificial birth control…"

seattlecatholic.com/article_20020111_A_Manufactured_Priest_Shortage.html

What sense is it to enforce celibacy when 75% of priests gravely mislead the faithful that contraception is OK? How are celibates like Christ when 75% of them teach contraception is OK?

It would seem much more important to ensure assent of either celibates or married than allow celibates to dissent.
 
Dear Mr. McPherran,

Would you please tell us if you are a member of Voice of the Faithful?

So many thanks, :confused:

Anna
 
Anna Elizabeth:
Dear Mr. McPherran,

Would you please tell us if you are a member of Voice of the Faithful?

So many thanks, :confused:

Anna
Click to expand...
No, I am not a member of Voice of the Faithful.
 
The Byzantines allow their priests to marry and the Anglican/Episcopalian “priests” are also married. However, both churches have a shortage of ministers. So I don’t really think perimitting married priests in the Latin rite would help the shortage.
 
Wow, what a range of opinions and points being raised.

I’d like to point out that first and foremost, it really doesn’t matter how “we” feel the Church should proceed on this. This question is a matter of Obedience to the Magisterium for those who have followed the call to the Priesthood. The Church is not a democracy, and it is through obedience that we are all given an opportunity to attain sanctification, both laity and religious, each finding authority in it’s appropriate place for our station in life.

But why do I agree (or disagree) with the current position taken by the Church on this matter of obedience (as opposed to Dogma, which would be unchangeable)?

I agree it is sad that we have fewer vocations from many of our Parishes / Diocese than are needed to meet our ongoing needs. I find it interesting that there is such a range in the rate of vocations among the Diocese. I haven’t enough personal knowledge to confirm this, but it’s been said that the more faithful the Diocese is to the Magisterium, the higher their rates of vocations.

I agree with an earlier comment that marriage for Priets could add to the confusion that the Priesthood is simply another career option, as opposed to a calling which requires sacrifice right up front. For the same reason, I prefer religious orders that include full habits in the most traditional sense. When you are obviously religious, simply walking down the street becomes a sermon, with no words being spoken.

Personally, I believe that the problems we have had with the “scandals” in the Church are precisely because we have not been teaching (or being taught) the importance of celebacy for everyone, according to our station in life. The body, as the Temple of the Holy Spirit, is sacred and hence must not be desecrated. The Marital Act is intended to give a married couple to most wonderful opportunity to join God in the Co-creation of Life, the creation of a new soul, who is to be taught to bring Glory and Honor to God. Our culture has so completely divorced ourselves from this concept that even some Priests have failed to recognize the sinfulness of their ways and the significance of the crimes committed against those whom they were meant to shepherd.

I don’t see how questions of the number of Catholics who believe other than what the Church has taught infallibly has anything to do with the question. Abortion, Birth Control, etc, are all questions which have been answered through Dogma, and as such are immutable. The Truth on these questions is as unchangable as 2 + 2 = 4. No amount of debate, no majority can change that which is True. What is true is that if we had married Priests, their dissent on these issue could be quite evident, and the scandels we deal with would grow to include these.

Also, someone referenced that they didn’t see it as “fair” that Priests ordained in other Traditions be subsequently allowed to serve in the Latin Rite Catholic Tradition. As Christ said in His parable regarding the worker in the field who was paid the prevailing wage, while the worker who arrived at the end of the day was paid the same, what does this matter? It’s like when Peter was concerned as to how John would die, once he knew his would be painful. We are not to be concerned with the other, rather, we are to accept (or reject) that which we have been called to.

That’s my humble (I hope) two cents worth.

Peace be with you,

CARose
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top