When priests get married

[YipYupYep]

Vicious? Do you think the bishops have been perpetuating their own victimhood on the next generation of clergy for all these centuries, then? After all, it is not married people who have imposed this discipline

No, not precisely. The Bishops are under obedience and victims of the same tyranny.

So then, celibates are saying that celibacy has such value? Really. Never heard that one myself. Are celibates telling you this?

But… yes, there may be that special person who chooses a life supernatural. However. It was Gods stated intention to have man and woman together as one in a Holy union. Why would the Roman Catholic Priest be denied the full rich experience of life that God has hard wired into the DNA of every human being.

No, the problem is not the Bishops. If its ever to be corrected, it must come from Rome.

 

[EasterJoy]

No, not precisely. The Bishops are under obedience and victims of the same tyranny.

So then, celibates are saying that celibacy has such value? Really. Never heard that one myself. Are celibates telling you this?

But… yes, there may be that special person who chooses a life supernatural. However. It was Gods stated intention to have man and woman together as one in a Holy union. Why would the Roman Catholic Priest be denied the full rich experience of life that God has hard wired into the DNA of every human being.

No, the problem is not the Bishops. If its ever to be corrected, it must come from Rome.

Well, actually, yes. I have friends that are priests, and they have told me celibacy has value, yes. The priest who told me he would not want to be the priest’s kid. The priest who told me he was the freest chaplain in the military, because he did not have to fear that reprisals would affect his ability to provide for his wife and children, as his counterparts in other denominations did. I know religious brothers: they obviously didn’t take on celibacy because it was the only way to become a priest. They aren’t priests. I know religious sisters that have no desire to take on a husband, either. These men and women could not do what they do, if they had a family to care for.

And that is the thing: They see the whole package, that having a sexual partner means having a spouse and children to care for. They see what they would have to give, and see that not so much as something they would lose, but as that much they could not give the Lord. They do not look at the question just what they would get or lose personally.

St. Paul, who wrote that those who do not marry are more free to serve the Lord fully. He states that the married have trials that the unmarried do not have. He wasn’t even talking about priests. He was talking about Christians in general. Read chapter 7 from his Letter to the Corinthians. Celibacy is not a gift given to everyone, but it is a gift. So much for God’s stated intention.

As another aside, though, one of the reasons that priestly celibacy was enforced as a discipline was to prevent church assets from being lost to inheritance. All the reasons were not spiritual.

I also don’t think you understand the relationship between the Pope and the bishops very well. The Holy Father doesn’t have his brother bishops on a leash. He never has.

BTW: Are you saying that you don’t believe that Jesus and Mary were celibate, or else do you mean to say that they were denied “the full rich experience of life that God has hard wired into the DNA of every human being”? Or are you just writing them off as “supernatural”? The Scripture does not imply that early Christians saw it this way.

 

[GailMac]

Dear Yipyapyup - you state:“However, to impose Celibacy on the Priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church imposes an unnatural condition that is not only vicious, but hurtful to the Churches ability to provide the number of Priests necessary to undertake the Churches mission.”

What’s vicious about virginity, chastity or obedience?

Peace,

Gail

 

[YipYupYep]

What’s vicious about virginity, chastity or obedience?

Yes. There is a good and proper time for this in the growth of a human person, not a life long sentence. Its a hard bid.

 

[YipYupYep]

The priest who told me he was the freest chaplain in the military, because he did not have to fear that reprisals would affect his ability to provide for his wife and children, as his counterparts in other denominations did

This is the very reason I started this thread. He is so right. As I see it, the majority of Catholic people would much rather, furtively cup a dollar bill in there hand and quickly drop it in the basket.

The financial consequences of a married priesthood would be Shock and Awe in the parishes of the U.S. when the bill for this was put on the table. It would be time to grow up time.

 

[Shike]

{DISCLAIMER: Please don’t take my comments as inflammatory or mean-spirited; which you probably won’t anyway; I just say this because I am not that great of an online communicator}

Yes. There is a good and proper time for this in the growth of a human person, not a life long sentence. Its a hard bid.

What if I copy your statement and switch it to refer to marriage instead…

“Yes. There is a good and proper time for this [marriage] in the growth of a human person, not a life long sentence. Its a hard bid.”

The problem is that celibacy here is viewed as only what one gives up. But not so! Celibacy is also, and primarily, a radical union with God. Both marriage and celibacy can be held up to each other as distinct vocations. I’m not even talking about the priesthood because that is not needed to make my point. Celibacy is more than a lack of sex… but a primarily positive reality, it’s a saying ‘yes’ to God (Note: I’m not saying anything else is a ‘no’ to God at all!). An intention of eternity is analytic to both Celibacy and Marriage, meaning that if you remove the intention of eternity it is no longer that same thing. It is essential. Therefore if you make celibacy temporary, it is no longer celibacy in the Catholic sense. This, hopefully, was made more obvious by my example above in quotes.

The Church’s celibacy is radically different than that of the world’s.
I really, really implore you to read a book by Fr. Thomas Dubay, “And You Are Christ’s: The Charism of Virginity and the Celibate Life”. It’s a quick read. At least read this book as a favor to yourself, so that if you aren’t persuaded you can continue your argument and can without a doubt say you are familiar with both sides of the issue.

peace buddy.

 

[EasterJoy]

{DISCLAIMER: Please don’t take my comments as inflammatory or mean-spirited; which you probably won’t anyway; I just say this because I am not that great of an online communicator}

What if I copy your statement and switch it to refer to marriage instead…

“Yes. There is a good and proper time for this [marriage] in the growth of a human person, not a life long sentence. Its a hard bid.”

Exactly. No one ever said that picking up a cross wasn’t supposed to be a “hard bid.” It is the attitude of being willing to take on God’s will regardless of difficulty, because of the joy that God’s will brings, that makes the yoke easy and the burden light. But our calling will be a yoke, make no mistake.

This is the very reason I started this thread. He is so right. As I see it, the majority of Catholic people would much rather, furtively cup a dollar bill in there hand and quickly drop it in the basket.

The financial consequences of a married priesthood would be Shock and Awe in the parishes of the U.S. when the bill for this was put on the table. It would be time to grow up time.

No, it wasn’t that it cost less to keep a priest as a military chaplain. That was not it at all. It was that if he were to be “fired” by the military brass or suffered reprisals for preaching the truth, he was the only one that had to bear the consequences. He was prepared for poverty, prepared for obedience, prepared to be celibate. What can you hold over a man who has given up everything?

It is hard enough to be courageous when you are the only one who will get the martyrdom that follows. When your wife and kids are going to suffer, too, though, it gives a man pause. Likewise, if he were put into poverty, he alone starved. He did not have to watch his children starve for his choices, or worry that his martyrdom would leave his wife a widow and his children orphans. He does not have to worry that his children will be taunted and his wife isolated by her friends, if his parishioners don’t like his decisions. (Do not kid yourself: pastors who serve at the pleasure of congregations who choose them by committee have that to think about.)

And what mother could be anything like as free as a religious sister typically is, when it comes to service to the Church? As a habit, a married woman without children could not even do it. A priest or religious can get the call to go to Africa today and have bags packed tomorrow. You can’t do that to children or to a marriage, not except in true extremity, and for their own sake.

Could St. Paul have done what he did with a wife and children in tow? Blessed Damien of Molokai? The Missionaries of Charity? Who could ask that of a family?