E
edwest211
Guest
That assumption about priests getting married is not based on facts. It’s not that simple.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
edwest211
Guest
Vatican II was called for specific reasons by Pope John XXIII. The Second Vatican Council was announced by the Pope in 1959. To call it “the largest influence on the Church today” is not accurate. When it ended in December 1965, various groups would be formed to launch a coordinated attack inside and outside the Church, which started to gain momentum in 1966. None of the changes attributed to Vatican II were even suggested by Vatican II. Removing statues, altar/communion rails and even artwork was done by persons unknown. They are being replaced in some Churches in recent years “due to the things that happened in the 1960s.”
So. What happened? Radicals and anarchists began to appear in our neighborhoods and took advantage of our trust. They had a new gospel: turn your back on the Church, ignore what your parents taught you and use illegal drugs, which they could provide. And here are stacks of books about eastern mysticism. Do Hippie yoga. Cohabitate. You know you want to have sex with your girlfriend (or whoever). Most of us resisted but they were persistent and would continue to serve as bad examples. My Hippie friend called fornication “performing natural acts.” I was there.
1968 Advisors to Pope Paul VI tell him they think the Church should loosen its stance on artificial birth control. He disagrees and reaffirms constant Church teaching in the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Within 24 hours, some Catholic theologians sign a full page ad in the New York Times stating their dissent. They tell married Catholics it’s OK to use ABC - far beyond their authority as theologians.
1969 NARAL is established. The initials went from meaning the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, then the National Abortion Rights Action League, and later the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. They promoted abortion by lying to the American people. Here, their co-founder describes how it was done:
1970s Just a few years earlier, the worst you could legally do was buy Playboy or “girlie” magazines, if you knew where to go. Just photos of topless or nude women. Then, Adult Bookstores popped up everywhere selling gynecological porn. Who paid for all this? Who allowed this? The planned addictions followed. In fact, one of the worst publications was a thick magazine filled with photos of nude or semi-nude women looking for no strings attached sex. And topless bars and strip clubs - still called ‘gentlemen’s clubs’ in some places - also just appeared. Who paid for that?
1973 The US Supreme Court, not the people, legalizes abortion in Roe v. Wade. Jane Roe - real name, Norma McCorvey - never got an abortion. I feel my country had just stabbed me in the back. She later became pro-life.
Before stepping down as Pope, Pope Benedict addressed Vatican II twice:
So. What happened? Radicals and anarchists began to appear in our neighborhoods and took advantage of our trust. They had a new gospel: turn your back on the Church, ignore what your parents taught you and use illegal drugs, which they could provide. And here are stacks of books about eastern mysticism. Do Hippie yoga. Cohabitate. You know you want to have sex with your girlfriend (or whoever). Most of us resisted but they were persistent and would continue to serve as bad examples. My Hippie friend called fornication “performing natural acts.” I was there.
1968 Advisors to Pope Paul VI tell him they think the Church should loosen its stance on artificial birth control. He disagrees and reaffirms constant Church teaching in the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Within 24 hours, some Catholic theologians sign a full page ad in the New York Times stating their dissent. They tell married Catholics it’s OK to use ABC - far beyond their authority as theologians.
1969 NARAL is established. The initials went from meaning the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, then the National Abortion Rights Action League, and later the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. They promoted abortion by lying to the American people. Here, their co-founder describes how it was done:
1970s Just a few years earlier, the worst you could legally do was buy Playboy or “girlie” magazines, if you knew where to go. Just photos of topless or nude women. Then, Adult Bookstores popped up everywhere selling gynecological porn. Who paid for all this? Who allowed this? The planned addictions followed. In fact, one of the worst publications was a thick magazine filled with photos of nude or semi-nude women looking for no strings attached sex. And topless bars and strip clubs - still called ‘gentlemen’s clubs’ in some places - also just appeared. Who paid for that?
1973 The US Supreme Court, not the people, legalizes abortion in Roe v. Wade. Jane Roe - real name, Norma McCorvey - never got an abortion. I feel my country had just stabbed me in the back. She later became pro-life.
Before stepping down as Pope, Pope Benedict addressed Vatican II twice:
Last edited:
J
jack63
Guest
edwest211
I hear you that things went way too far in the interpretation of Vatican II.
Your article mentions woman priests. I wish woman priests and married priests would not be mentioned together. I have really strong doubts about woman clergy, my actual life experience (I’m a catholic convert) is that the practice of woman priests needs to be thought through very carefully so it does not actually hurt the woman who may play this role. It is has been my life experiences that it does hurt them.
There was discussion about married priests around the time Vatican II. I believe this was a positive.
I hear you that things went way too far in the interpretation of Vatican II.
Your article mentions woman priests. I wish woman priests and married priests would not be mentioned together. I have really strong doubts about woman clergy, my actual life experience (I’m a catholic convert) is that the practice of woman priests needs to be thought through very carefully so it does not actually hurt the woman who may play this role. It is has been my life experiences that it does hurt them.
There was discussion about married priests around the time Vatican II. I believe this was a positive.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Catholic Women Priests are automatically excommunicated. Married Priests may have been discussed but never in a positive way. Pope Paul VI wrote about priestly celibacy in 1967.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_24061967_sacerdotalis.html
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_24061967_sacerdotalis.html
E
edwest211
Guest
Evil was marketed like a product.
https://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption-Disguised/dp/1942475217
https://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption-Disguised/dp/1942475217
O
otjm
Guest
And perhaps part of the question to be asked is “did the poster actually read the documents?”
O
otjm
Guest
While I agree with some of the comments, I would point out a couple of things.
There were 16 documents from Vatican 2 deliberations; the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was only one, but it is about the only one that gets any discussion (complaints, objections, etc.).
Much changed in the Church, and it gets blamed on Vatican 2, or post Vatican 2 responses. and there has been a fall-off in attendance, from a high of about 72% attending Mass weekly, to somewhere around 23%currently. However 2 facts are constantly ignored: the fall-off in attendance at Mass started in the late 1950’s while Pope Pius 12th was alive (so obviously not due to Vatican 2) and has been gradual ever since (as in, no major drop-off after Vatican 2, ad many allege). the other point is that the mainline Protestant communities have experienced a similar drop-off over the same time period, strongly implying that the reduction was not due to Vatican 2, but to other issues.
And groups did not magically come together after Vatican 2; they were already in existence prior to it. They may have become far, far more public, but they were not created by Vatican 2 by any means.
There were 16 documents from Vatican 2 deliberations; the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was only one, but it is about the only one that gets any discussion (complaints, objections, etc.).
Much changed in the Church, and it gets blamed on Vatican 2, or post Vatican 2 responses. and there has been a fall-off in attendance, from a high of about 72% attending Mass weekly, to somewhere around 23%currently. However 2 facts are constantly ignored: the fall-off in attendance at Mass started in the late 1950’s while Pope Pius 12th was alive (so obviously not due to Vatican 2) and has been gradual ever since (as in, no major drop-off after Vatican 2, ad many allege). the other point is that the mainline Protestant communities have experienced a similar drop-off over the same time period, strongly implying that the reduction was not due to Vatican 2, but to other issues.
And groups did not magically come together after Vatican 2; they were already in existence prior to it. They may have become far, far more public, but they were not created by Vatican 2 by any means.
E
edwest211
Guest
I didn’t mean to suggest any groups were created by Vatican II. My clear reading of the information I’ve gathered was that Vatican II was their excuse, the smoke screen they used to say “Blame it on Vatican II.” The timing for their appearance was deliberate.
J
jack63
Guest
I read this document. This was useful. Thank you! A few comments on the requirement of priest celibacy. First Pope Paul VI basically says it is a discipline and not a doctrine. He specifically says…Married Priests may have been discussed but never in a positive way. Pope Paul VI wrote about priestly celibacy in 1967.
Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (June 24, 1967) | Paul VI
Certainly I agree with this. I really do agree that celibacy can be a gift to the church in some cases. If the church does change the requirement for priest celibacy, I hope they keep it as a requirement for at least some of the religious orders in some way.The first seems to come from the most authoritative source, the New Testament which preserves the teaching of Christ and the Apostles. It does not openly demand celibacy of sacred ministers but proposes it rather as a free act of obedience to a special vocation or to a special spiritual gift. (2) Jesus Himself did not make it a prerequisite in His choice of the Twelve, nor did the Apostles for those who presided over the first Christian communities. (3)
A big part of Pope Paul’s argument is “Testimony of the Past and Present”. Again I have no problem with this argument. He is basically saying “It works well now. Why change it?” In fact in on JUNE 24, 1967 the number of priests per parish was near the highest level ever in the US.
However, I see JUNE 24, 1967 as the inflection point in this data. I actually think this statement by Pope Paul strengthens the case that “What the heck happened” was that priests realized they could not marry and they left the priest hood. Changing priest celibacy was under debate. Pope Paul ended that debate. Priests left.
Last edited:
J
jack63
Guest
…and enough of the evil thing. Married priests are not evil. Changing priest celibacy is not evil. Debating priest celibacy is not evil. Saying Vatican II had some positives is not evil.
E
edwest211
Guest
I don’t see that as true. I was there as some religious left in 1970, partly in response to the Dutch Pastoral Council which sought to make priestly celibacy optional. Rome did not agree. Time magazine covered this as a cover story dated Feb. 23, 1970, which was no coincidence. Disobedience was in the air as far as nuns were concerned as well, like Anita Caspary (who appeared on that cover in a color illustration)… “Oppression” was the battle cry for radicals in general and those who just refused to listen.
"Anita Caspary, the onetime mother superior who led the largest single exodus of nuns from the Roman Catholic Church in American history, died on Oct 5 in Los Angeles. She was 95.
"Her death was confirmed by a spokesman for the Immaculate Heart Community, a lay Christian group that she and the 300 nuns who followed her established in 1970 after their break with the church.
"The cause of the schism, though nominally about dress codes and bedtimes, was understood on both sides as a matter of church law. Dr. Caspary viewed the Vatican II reforms of the early 1960s as a mandate for nuns to assert more control over their own lives. Her boss, Archbishop James Francis McIntyre of Los Angeles, did not.
"Dr. Caspary always contended that she and other members of her order, the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, never wanted to renounce their vows. In a 2003 memoir, “Witness to Integrity,” she said they had been virtually forced into it by the intransigence of Cardinal McIntyre, who adamantly refused to let them teach in archdiocese schools unless they wore habits and adhered to a host of traditional regimens governing when they prayed, when they went to bed, and what books were appropriate for nuns to read.
“The cardinal cited pre-Vatican II law and centuries-old church tradition. To permit the changes proposed by the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart would in effect lead “our convents to become hotels or boarding houses for women,” he wrote in a letter to the Vatican quoted in his official 1996 biography.”
The Time cover story: Religion: Priests and Nuns: Going Their Way - TIME
From the New York Times:"Anita Caspary, the onetime mother superior who led the largest single exodus of nuns from the Roman Catholic Church in American history, died on Oct 5 in Los Angeles. She was 95.
"Her death was confirmed by a spokesman for the Immaculate Heart Community, a lay Christian group that she and the 300 nuns who followed her established in 1970 after their break with the church.
"The cause of the schism, though nominally about dress codes and bedtimes, was understood on both sides as a matter of church law. Dr. Caspary viewed the Vatican II reforms of the early 1960s as a mandate for nuns to assert more control over their own lives. Her boss, Archbishop James Francis McIntyre of Los Angeles, did not.
"Dr. Caspary always contended that she and other members of her order, the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, never wanted to renounce their vows. In a 2003 memoir, “Witness to Integrity,” she said they had been virtually forced into it by the intransigence of Cardinal McIntyre, who adamantly refused to let them teach in archdiocese schools unless they wore habits and adhered to a host of traditional regimens governing when they prayed, when they went to bed, and what books were appropriate for nuns to read.
“The cardinal cited pre-Vatican II law and centuries-old church tradition. To permit the changes proposed by the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart would in effect lead “our convents to become hotels or boarding houses for women,” he wrote in a letter to the Vatican quoted in his official 1996 biography.”
J
jack63
Guest
If it is any consolation, allowing married priests will be bringing many moderate to conservative men into very significant roles in the church. There will be a lot of these married priests and they may be well equipped to handle situations like you describe…“A religious order rejects their vows for questionable reasons (I don’t know all the details…I wasn’t there)”.
By allowing married priests, you’d likely be creating allies for these types of situations.
By allowing married priests, you’d likely be creating allies for these types of situations.
Last edited:
A
Augustinian
Guest
Eventually, sure. But it takes a long time in formation to make a priest.If it is any consolation, allowing married priests will be bringing many moderate to conservative men into very significant roles in the church.
The wives of priests will have to be at the very least vetted as well. I don’t think that a lot of gals would be particularly well suited to this. Suppose they have their own careers- or maybe aren’t Catholic?
J
jack63
Guest
One more thing. I really believe looking at this decision about continuing the requirement for priest celibacy alone (from JUNE 24, 1967) does not give the complete picture of what Pope Paul had in mind. This decision must be looked at together with decision Pope Paul made literally a week before (June 18, 1967) restoring the Permanent Diaconate (i.e. restoring the clerical order of deacons for married men)Married Priests may have been discussed but never in a positive way. Pope Paul VI wrote about priestly celibacy in 1967.
Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (June 24, 1967) | Paul VI
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-v..._motu-proprio_19670618_sacrum-diaconatus.html
So…I think, given the circumstances and the time, Pope Paul made very wise and good decisions. Reading these two decisions together, I believe he is saying the following…
1st: He is saying celibate clergy have never ever been doctrine
2nd: Based on “present testimony” (i.e. the church’s present institutional needs), priests will remain celibate.
3rd: If clergy want to get married, they still can be clergy and he really wants them to be clergy. To allow this he is restoring the order of the Permanent Diaconate
My concern is that people ask “what happened” with all these priests leaving. Then they assume it was because of the negative effects of Vatican II. This is followed by the the conclusion that Vatican II was bad and should be undone. I believe this could not be farther from the truth. These two decisions taken together by Pope Paul explain a lot of “what the heck happened”.
There are now something like 50,000 deacons worldwide that play I really important role in the church. In 1967 there were obviously none. The number of priests have declined. This is expected based on Pope Paul’s decisions. It is not a criticism of Pope Paul to say that the number of priests declined based on his decisions.
Last edited:
J
jack63
Guest
I think you have this great culture of married catholic clergy in the Latin rite that can be built from. You have many married deacons, and you have some married catholic priests (Anglican converts). As I understand, these clergy and their wives are well vetted.The wives of priests will have to be at the very least vetted as well. I don’t think that a lot of gals would be particularly well suited to this. Suppose they have their own careers- or maybe aren’t Catholic?
You also have a historical vetting over the last 50 years. Pope Paul restored the Permanent Diaconate. Pope John Paul allowed for married Anglican converts who were priests. Pope Benedict affirmed and expanded the role of Anglican converts who were priests in the church. It is not like its the 1960s or 1970s.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
One has to do careful research.
"According to Vatican figures, between 1964 and 2004, 69,063 men left the priesthood worldwide, Sullins wrote. Thousands resigned because they wanted to marry.
"But some came to regret their decisions, and 11,213 were allowed to return to priestly service. That included widows or men who had their marriages annulled, Sullins said.
“The number of Catholic priests in the U.S. has dropped by more than 30% since 1965, when there were 58,632 priests, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. In 2016, there were 37,192.”
"According to Vatican figures, between 1964 and 2004, 69,063 men left the priesthood worldwide, Sullins wrote. Thousands resigned because they wanted to marry.
"But some came to regret their decisions, and 11,213 were allowed to return to priestly service. That included widows or men who had their marriages annulled, Sullins said.
“The number of Catholic priests in the U.S. has dropped by more than 30% since 1965, when there were 58,632 priests, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. In 2016, there were 37,192.”
C
commenter
Guest
There were too many confounding variables to attribute the decline in priests to Pope Paul’s decisions. There were other trends going on in society at the same time. Countless priests and religious left religious orders where there was never any hint of possible lifting the celibacy rule. There were occasional articles about possible change in the celibacy rule, but this was never considered more than a small possibility.The number of priests have declined. This is expected based on Pope Paul’s decisions. It is not a criticism of Pope Paul to say that the number of priests declined based on his decisions.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.