Priests were allowed to marry at first

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious_Hobbit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn’t this because of that rule in the past that Rome dictates that married priest can only be ordained in the traditional territories of the Eastern Churches? Since America is not their traditional territories, the only married priests there are immigrants. I think that has changed.
Yes, that was the rule.

The current CCEO leaves it up to the sui juris Churches particular Law.

Unfortunatly, for some reason the Ruthenians have a clause that Rome must approve of a married candidates ordination. The other two that I am of aware of, the UGCC, and the Melkites, do not have that clause in their particular law.
 
What I’ve read is that female, child victims were very much a minority. Most were pubescent, male, teenagers, or near it (11+ yo).

The proper name for this perversion is pederasty, not pedophilia.
The very fact that victims are of both sexes means that it is about pedophilia.

In any case, there’s no point in continuing this discussion. And with that, I exit this tangent of the thread.
 
Sorry, I can’t leave this alone.

The ‘paedophile’ slur is used to divert attention by liberal media personnel from what that small minority of R.C. priests actually did.
  • Paedophila is sex with non-pubescent children of either gender.
  • Pederasty is sex between an adult man and pubescent or young teenage male i.e. homosexuality.
Since liberals generally and modern Western media in particular are now positively pro-homosexuality, it’s uncomfortable for them to face the fact that a lot of the deviants were not paedophiles; they were pederasts. They abused a position of trust and respect to prey upon younger, weaker, men who were just coming into their manhood and experiencing all the turbulence that that change brings.

To return to topic. I don’t think having married priests would necessarily protect against paedophilia. Or pederasty. Paedophilia often occurs amongst families, I’ve read. Deviants try to hide their deviancy, even to the extent of getting married.

What would work is simply sending home any young weirdo the other seminarians and the ‘normal’ staff know is unholy. It would save we laymen from being guinea pigs for political correctness and the latest psychological fads and the Church from timebombs going off years down the line.
 
The very fact that victims are of both sexes means that it is about pedophilia.

.
88% of the abuse was homosexual rape of post pubcesant boys. There was very, very little pediophilia involved in any of the abuse. The reason this is important is because of the church were merely heightened their efforts to keep pedophiles out of the clergy it would not have solved the problem
 
So they’re better priests because they’re married? Or better people, for that matter? This seems to be a deeper issue than just celibacy within the priesthood.
Not better priests simply because they are married. It is a deeper issue than just celibacy.

I agree with comments made on this thread about the state of some seminaries. Traditional seminaries truly focus on making their priestly candidates into exemplars of priestly holiness. Is it because of the discipline at a seminary? Is it because of better training in prayer life, spiritual reading etc.? Perhaps the seminaries should be investigated by Rome (Rome is already investigating religious orders, is it not?).

Married priests lead busy lives and celibate priests may not, at times - although with the priestly shortage, one would think that celibate priests wouldn’t have time to adjust their collars!

Why is it that laity in situations where there are both married and celibate priests will choose services given by the married ones? Any ideas? I don’t want to make (any more) generalizations.

Alex
 
To return to topic. I don’t think having married priests would necessarily protect against paedophilia. Or pederasty. Paedophilia often occurs amongst families, I’ve read. Deviants try to hide their deviancy, even to the extent of getting married.

What would work is simply sending home any young weirdo the other seminarians and the ‘normal’ staff know is unholy. It would save we laymen from being guinea pigs for political correctness and the latest psychological fads and the Church from timebombs going off years down the line.
The incidents of abuse is higher among clergy of denominations that allow their clergy to be married
 
Why is it that laity in situations where there are both married and celibate priests will choose services given by the married ones? Any ideas? I don’t want to make (any more) generalizations.

Alex
Well, being single myself, I think I’d want the celibate one. But that’s me.
 
Is it because of the discipline at a seminary? Is it because of better training in prayer life, spiritual reading etc.? Perhaps the seminaries should be investigated by Rome (Rome is already investigating religious orders, is it not?).
I don’t think most Catholics realise how far the rot has gone. It’s probably better that way. The only inkling they’ll get is when the vocation shortage in their diocese affects them personally. Or their diocese has to pay out for multiple lawsuits. Or granny asks the kids a few simple questions about their religion and is surprised by the answers.

Part of the problem is that many Catholics truly don’t know what their Faith requires of them. They’re not taught it any more. They have no fear of Hell. Mass is a communal meal. The TLM is a rumour or a novelty (ha!). Nothing to spur a man to reach out for the Sacred.

So their diocese gently implodes and their children apostasise. They don’t link this to liberal Catholicism.

As it carries the seeds of its own destruction I’m not too worried about it. But I think the going may be hard over the next twenty years in some places.
 
And the practice of a celibate priesthood in the Latin Church could serve as precedent for the Eastern Church.
It has already, that and more. Your idea is nothing new.

The victim churches are still recovering from the damages.
Perhaps it might be better not to suggest the further imposition of Roman Church disciplines on the East and Orient.
Agreed, they have been ruinous enough already.

I suggest that both ‘lungs’ have both options, but of course it should only ever be a suggestion. Every Sui Iuris church should decide that issue for itself without interference in any other Sui Iuris church nor engage in politicking with the big guy in Rome.
 
True or not I don’t remember encountering this before, but there was a Pope who was supposedly the son of a patriarch of Constantinople.
Finally found it…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Silverius
Pope Saint Silverius was Pope from June 8, 536 until March 537.
He was a legitimate son of Pope Hormisdas, born before his father entered the priesthood. He was probably consecrated on June 8, 536. He may have been married to a woman called Antonia before receiving holy orders, however this remains debated by historians.
 
1.) Priests have never been allowed to marry.

2.) Married men have occasionally been allowed ordination into Priesthood.

3.) There are SOME married priests in the Latin Rite, eg converts from Anglicanism. There are also growing numbers of permanent deacons whom are married men, converted from various protestant churches.

4.) There are practical reasons for celibacy:
  • A single man need not divide his love between God and family.
  • A single man is able to up-and-go where-ever he is needed.
  • A single man has less to tie him down to a place.
  • A single man is able to face martyrdom without fear of leaving a widow.
  • A single man is able to be “Father” to many spiritual children.
There are dozens more reasons and you can ask any number of priests, and they will tell you that they chose the discipline of celibacy. It is a sacrifice made in order to gain graces and help from God to carry out a ministry.
 
  • A single man is able to up-and-go where-ever he is needed.
  • A single man has less to tie him down to a place.
  • A single man is able to face martyrdom without fear of leaving a widow.
I’ve read this elsewhere. A Bishop can send an R.C. priest to the Congo or Ballyfitzpartick at 24 hours notice. Very useful for evangelism. Probably the reason Roman Catholicism is so widespread.
 
It has already, that and more. Your idea is nothing new.

The victim churches are still recovering from the damages. Agreed, they have been ruinous enough already.

I suggest that both ‘lungs’ have both options, but of course it should only ever be a suggestion. Every Sui Iuris church should decide that issue for itself without interference in any other Sui Iuris church nor engage in politicking with the big guy in Rome.
“Victim Churches” oh give me a break.
 
I’ve read this elsewhere. A Bishop can send an R.C. priest to the Congo or Ballyfitzpartick at 24 hours notice. Very useful for evangelism. Probably the reason Roman Catholicism is so widespread.
Well, certainly when you have celibate priests who are eager to serve, usually in a religious Order, then they will move at a moment’s notice.

As for the Latin Church being widespread - we cannot eliminate the fact that Catholicism came with the imperial colonizers of Europe and tended to be imposed from the top down.

This is why in Latin America, for instance, there is largely a Catholic culture but not really a Catholic society.

In addition, Roman Catholicism was “lucky” so to speak to be in the driver’s seat and moving across the globe with the great empires.

The Eastern Churches suffered under various foreign and anti-Christian “yokes” of oppression, the Turkish Yoke etc.

The married priests under those regimes kept the Christian Church and faith alive, moving from village to village, teaching people the faith, how to worship, and at very grave risk to their lives. Monastics, such as St Cosmas Aitolos, did the same.

In the Soviet Union, the married priests likewise kept the faith alive. When the USSR crumbled, it was married priests who took matters into their own hands, and affirmed that Christianity was alive and that the Church is “back!”

In the first millennium, married Latini priests were likewise missionaries and carried the faith everywhere. St Boniface the Apostle of Germany, although certainly not married, was helped in his mission by zealous nuns who established monasteries and contributed in ways that men simply could not and did not.

I wanted to mention a further point on this because I had been wanting to become a celibate priest myself and thought of nothing else for years before completing university.

My father left the seminary during the war and wanted me to be a priest to carry on the “family tradition” 🙂 .

I liked reading about all things religious anyway, loved the church services and saw myself in priestly robes (I would dress up in makeshift robes for prayer, would give blessings at baseball games etc.).

Everything came to a halt when I went to high school, a Catholic high school. When it became known that I wanted to be a priest (which would certainly have meant a celibate priest), I was shocked at what followed for the duration of my time in the school.

Students regarded me as inclining toward homosexuality and this simply because I said I wanted to be a priest. I was not only attacked verbally, but also physically (which is why I trained as an amateur wrestler, simply to defend myself).

There was also tension between the clerical teachers and the lay teachers. The guidance counsellor actually had me examined by a school psychologist (also a former seminarian) who told me that he saw homosexual behaviour in seminaries which is why he left. “But if you have the calling, Alex . . .” Not very encouraging, to say the least.

I was then told to see a woman counselor who assessed, believe me or not, my physical attractiveness to women. I was taught how to ask a girl out, conversation during a date and in the end the counselor (who was no great “looker” herself, truth be told 😉 ), told me that “you are no Rock Hudson (thank you Lord!!), but you are OK . . .”

I would have broken in faith altogether were it not for the devotions of the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima and the consolation I had from them.

I later became godfather to a number of friends’ children and to this day, they love telling others how I almost became a priest but then thought better of it.

No, I didn’t think better of it. When I work with friends who become priests and attend their ordinations, I have to look the other way. My heart breaks at those times. Sorry, but that is the truth.

People tell me I know more theology than many priests they know. That is no consolation for me at all. Anyone can read theology.

Thank you for tolerating me and for letting me get this off my chest.

Alex
 
A most interesting post. I wonder would it be fair to say that when you plump for holiness there’s an automatic reaction from the Devil?

I’ve also read that dioceses are over-reliant on lay counsellors, psychologists and psychiatrists. The latter may susbcribe to ideologies which contradict Catholicism i.e. there’s no room for the supernatural in modern science.

Also, I’ve read that if you have traditionalist views, it’s smart to hide them. Even in a seminary. I heard of one priest who had to put his cassock and biretta on when he got outside the premises. Something to that effect.
**
I think if I was going to the priesthood I wouldn’t lie about my interest in traditional Catholicism but I wouldn’t be forthcoming about it either.** I checked out a few websites and made a few enquiries last Winter and I realised a) I hadn’t a vocation and b) the orders and dioceses I looked at just weren’t on my wavelength anyway. It’s pertubing how little Catholic their websites look, for example. Others’ buildings lack Catholic symbols and/or have ‘New-Agey’ ones.

The best I read once was how diocesan psychologists were checking whether candidates had a ‘messiah complex’. They forgot that a priest is meant to be an ‘alter-Christus’!

I kinda hope my priest has a messiah complex 😉
 
I’ve read this elsewhere. A Bishop can send an R.C. priest to the Congo or Ballyfitzpartick at 24 hours notice. Very useful for evangelism. Probably the reason Roman Catholicism is so widespread.
The reason why Roman Catholicism is widespread is because of the Age of Exploration. Spain, France, Portugal, etc. brought Roman Catholicism to the world.

Married priests have been able to move quickly too with their families. Many missionaries are lay and married and have no problem doing their work in mission areas. Same with Protestant missionaries and ministers who move to other countries.
 
  • A single man need not divide his love between God and family.
I think this statement strikes those who like myself have chosen the vocation of marriage and parenthood. I can affirm that I can love God fully, and loving my family is loving God. While I agree celibacy is a greater calling, those who marry do not love God any less. If we don’t marry and reproduce, the human race will come to an end. While we should see celibacy as something greater, it doesn’t mean that we should see married life as something lesser.
  • A single man is able to up-and-go where-ever he is needed.
A woman who is married to a priest/minister/missionary should know what she is getting into. With those I’ve known who are married, Eastern Catholic priests or Protestant ministers, there hasn’t been much problems about going to other countries when needed. Sure, there are hangups sometimes, but the same is true with the single men. It may not be about the spouse, but there certainly can be other issues that would prevent them from going elsewhere.
  • A single man has less to tie him down to a place.
Again, not true. Many people feel more comfort and security going into a new land with their family. Having someone you know and love with you can help a lot in the psychological and emotional impact of moving.
  • A single man is able to face martyrdom without fear of leaving a widow.
Can go either way as well. There is the tradition of St. Peter and the martyrdom of his wife which is touching and beautiful.
  • A single man is able to be “Father” to many spiritual children.
I don’t see how married life can impede. In fact it may even enrich.
 
  • A single man is able to up-and-go where-ever he is needed.
Actually a bishop is pretty limited in where he can send a priest, mostly within his diocese.

Also things are not done as they were in the past. There is more dialogue in assignments, even within religious orders/communites.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top