Why Priests not married?

[Sherlock]

Wormwood,

Oh, I forgot…

You wrote: “You can say what you like about me, but that doesn’t change the fact that the celibacy clause was just added to protect the churches assets.”

I haven’t said anything about you at all…how odd that you say this. Are you a Baby Boomer, by any chance?

But tell me more about this “fact”—specifically, please give me reliable, credible historical data that supports this.

 

[Redeemerslove]

It is also funny to me that SOME catholics would try to belittle my intelligence and education. I’m not tooting my own horn, but I did graduate with a 3.8 and I currently hold a Master’s in biology and I am 2 years from being a doctor. Also I have been a member of Mensa for years as well as national honors society. What degrees do you wield? What do you have or do that gives you the right to question my intelligence?

I have a 3.95 GPA. I wouldn’t belong to Mensa if you paid me. I have some friends who do, and have touted the fact in the past, but now call the organization - vacuous.

Point is, present your argument. I don’t care what your credentials are, unless you are planning on teaching a course, writing a book, or presenting expert testimony.

The virtues of your position lie in your argument, not in your credentials.

 

[Wormwood]

It is funny that the only people that responded think they are smarter than me, yet they missed some facts.

Sounds like tooting your own horn to me. Richard Dawkins has a degree, or degrees, in biology too—has that made him any wiser on the subject of religion? Does being a doctor, or a member of Mensa, guarantee wisdom regarding the Scriptures? This is a new one for me…

Perfect example. If you had taken just a second more to see what this was in response to, you would see how irrelevant you are. The matter had nothing to do with scriptural intelligence, if such a thing exists. My understanding of grammer and my general intelligence had been called into question. Perhaps you should save your condescending remarks until you are actually right about something?

I never claimed that Jesus was speaking only of priests, or that he even used the word. Nor does he exclude priests. The fact that he was speaking to his disciples, and not to the public as a whole, lends credibility to the interpretation that priests may be celibate, but again, this is a discipline, not a doctrine. Jesus doesn’t require celibacy, but clearly indicates it may be the path for some. Not everyone gets married—are they sinning, in your eyes? What is your problem?

You admit he never says it and that it MAY be right for SOME. How do you read all priests should be celibate? This is not from scripture, so then where did it originate? And why must you try to make up juvenille arguments about the people that aren’t married? That is like me quoting you as saying " not everyone gets married…they ARE sinning…" that is a perversion of your question.

I never called you an idiot—why do you claim that I did? Are you perhaps feeling a little…insecure?

This shouldn’t be that hard to figure out, if you remember your basic grammar and sentence structure from grade school (or perhaps they don’t teach those things anymore).

you read the passage carefully (do try),

Yeah you’re right. I don’t know where I might have gotten that idea. Go ahead and put a nice face on it, that makes it MY problem I guess.I will not not be condescended by someone with no firm grasp on reality, you can’t even argue the points, you are just trying to pervert my words to make yourself seem more wise or pious, but it isn’t going to work. And btw, if you think someone is an idiot, you should have the courage to come out and tell them instead of thinly veiling it behind sarcasm and patronizing comments and then trying to back step when they call you on it.

 

[Wormwood]

I have a 3.95 GPA. I wouldn’t belong to Mensa if you paid me. I have some friends who do, and have touted the fact in the past, but now call the organization - vacuous.

Point is, present your argument. I don’t care what your credentials are, unless you are planning on teaching a course, writing a book, or presenting expert testimony.

Wonderful. If you had used that bra(name removed by moderator)ower to see why the topic of my education came up, you could have saved yourself the trouble of this pointless post. It had nothing to do with my correctness, it had to do with my ability to read and comprehend…in which case I would say they were a good example in my favor. Point is, make sure you know what you talking about before you offer your 2 cents. I am planning on giving expert testimony about a book writing class I teach. So there’s enough to satisfy you right?

 

[Redeemerslove]

Wormwood:

Wonderful. If you had used that bra(name removed by moderator)ower to see why the topic of my education came up, you could have saved yourself the trouble of this pointless post. It had nothing to do with my correctness, it had to do with my ability to read and comprehend…in which case I would say they were a good example in my favor. Point is, make sure you know what you talking about before you offer your 2 cents. I am planning on giving expert testimony about a book writing class I teach. So there’s enough to satisfy you right?

Nope. You are not teaching anyone here, this is not your class. Next time make a circumstantially relevant comment. We are not your students.

 

[Carl]

RomanRyan

I think Priests not getting married still defines us as Catholics, if we let them get married, then that would make us more like the Protestant Churches, it’s already bad enough Vatican II made us more “Modern”

So does this mean that all those married Catholic deacons are more like Protestants than unmarried Catholic deacons?

Whew!

 

[Sherlock]

Wormwood,

Good heavens, we seem to have touched a nerve. Clearly you have “issues”, as it is termed these days, with the sensitive topic of your own intelligence, as evidenced by your taking general comments so very personally. Now, these issues might be very fascinating for you, and I’m sure that there are all kinds of interesting (at least to you) background details, but frankly it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, so if you could tear yourself away from yourself-as-subject, this discussion could progress more fruitfully.

 

[Sherlock]

Carl,

I think you’re missing the point that RomanRyan is making. I will grant that he didn’t express himself very clearly, but I could tell what he was driving at. You have read more into what he was saying than he meant.

But anyway, no—this does not mean that all those married Catholic deacons are more like Protestants than unmarried Catholic deacons. How do you arrive at that? The discipline of a celibate priesthood is one distinguishing feature of the Latin rite Catholic Church. I believe that that was what RomanRyan was trying to convey, and he suggests that dispensing with that discipline would make the Church less distinctly “Roman” and more Protestant. So why don’t you address that suggestion rather than posting about deacons?

 

[Carl]

Sherlock

and he suggests that dispensing with that discipline would make the Church less distinctly “Roman” and more Protestant

Try to honor your namesake by saying more than I have already said.

Is the Eastern Rite (with optional celibacy) seemingly more Protestant than the Roman Rite?

How is it that married priests of the Roman Rite would seem more Protestant than their Eastern Rite brothers?

How is it that married deacons of the Roman Rite would seem more Protestant than celibate deacons?

Does the married apostle Peter seem more Protestant than the celibate apostle Paul?

Not the last time I looked.

Put your thinking cap on, Sherlock.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Carl,
I know your reply is to Sherlock but I would like to comment on some of the things you are talking about in it.

Carl:

Sherlock

and he suggests that dispensing with that discipline would make the Church less distinctly “Roman” and more Protestant

Try to honor your namesake by saying more than I have already said.

Is the Eastern Rite (with optional celibacy) seemingly more Protestant than the Roman Rite?

No, as this is our Tradition it is more of the traditional Eastern Rite Catholics who want this so I is more traditional.

How is it that married priests of the Roman Rite would seem more Protestant than their Eastern Rite brothers?

Many, if not most, of those who are calling for a married priesthood in the Latin Rite seem to be of the “liberal” or “progressive” (less traditional) side of things.

Where the Eastern side wants a return to their tradition, the Western side wants a change to their traditions.

This is why you can not equate the two arguements.

 

[Sherlock]

Carl,

You wrote: “Try to honor your namesake by saying more than I have already said.”

“Sherlock” happens to be the last name I was born with. Do me a favor and don’t assume that I am setting myself up as possessing some kind of detective ability by the act of using my name. Stick to the topic at hand.

You asked: “Is the Eastern Rite (with optional celibacy) seemingly more Protestant than the Roman Rite?”

No, of course not. I am speaking of the idea of changing a tradition (small “t”) WITHIN the Latin rite. What the Eastern Rite traditions are have no bearing on whether or not changing the Latin rite tradition indicates a lessening of tradition. The pressure to change the celibacy discipline does NOT come from Eastern Rite Catholics, it comes from quite another crowd. I think that ByzCath put it well: “Many, if not most, of those who are calling for a married priesthood in the Latin Rite seem to be of the “liberal” or “progressive” (less traditional) side of things.” As I stated in another post, favoring a change in the celibacy tradition is not a heterodox position to take, however, like it or not, those who are most in favor of it are often heterodox in other areas. Traditional, orthodox parishes that favor a celibate priesthood are the ones producing the most vocations.

 

[Carl]

ByzCath

Many, if not most, of those who are calling for a married priesthood in the Latin Rite seem to be of the “liberal” or “progressive” (less traditional) side of things.

An interesting point that does not seem to move the discussion forward. Many, if not most implies also that a good many are also of the conservative or traditional type Catholic.

The apostle Peter was certainly married. It is hard to think of him as anything but a happy combination of liberal and conservative. Maybe we need more of his type in the leadership of the Church today instead of all these partisan bishops, priests and theologians who are tearing the Church apart.

 

[Carl]

Sherlock

Traditional, orthodox parishes that favor a celibate priesthood are the ones producing the most vocations.

And they might be producing even more vocations if they would let in married men.

Are you saying that the Church should not be letting in all those married protestant ministers who have become priests? Are you afraid that all those priests will infect the Catholic Church with some kind of liberal Protestant virus?

Please follow your argument to its logical conclusion, Sherlock.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Carl:

And they might be producing even more vocations if they would let in married men.

Carl,
This is something that Latin Catholics who are pro-married priesthood often throw out while ignoring the facts.

The Eastern Catholics have a married priesthood, the Orthodox Churches have a married priesthood, many (if not all) protestant denominations have married ministers… And they are all hurting from a lack of vocations.

The married priesthood is not the answer to any percieved vocation crisis.

Are you saying that the Church should not be letting in all those married protestant ministers who have become priests? Are you afraid that all those priests will infect the Catholic Church with some kind of liberal Protestant virus?

Each of these are dealt with individually. Almost all of them have to spend time in a seminary to “upgrade” their education. And having said that, they are a very, very small number of priests.

I am more concerned with converted protestant theologians.

 

[flameburns623]

Hi, Sherlock:

I haven’t forgotten my part in this discussion. I believe the person whose book I referred to was A.W. Richard Sipes. This is based upon a web search; I haven’t been to the library where I looked the book over to confirm this. You and I share a low opinion of NPR: I only referenced them because I thought it might remind you of whom I was speaking. I think I thought the book was written by a woman because I’ve read at least one and possibly several ‘tell-all’ books by women who were lovers of priests. I note that Greeley doesn’t buy Sipes’ premises entirely–as with many trained in sociology, (my own field, btw), Greeley seems to feel that Sipes–as a psychologist–is too quick to generalize from the specific.

As a very-conservative Anglo-catholic I frankly think that John Paul II is thoroughly conservative–not reactionary or fringe conservative but thoroughly conservative. I know other Tradtionalist Anglicans who despise JPII as being virtually a Marxist radical. These are the same kinds of debates which go on in political life: is Bush a conservative or not? I have an Anglican friend who advocates a return to a Christian monarchism or Christian facism: he believes that societies led by elites are at least as well served as are democratic republics. Moreover, he feels that the very idea of a ‘democracy’ buys into certain philosophical presuppositions which invariably lead a society into decadence.

Not to turn this into a political discussion but by my friend’s standards, Bush is at best a moderate and at worst a liberal. By the same token, John Paul II–viewed from the vantage point of certain schismatic Catholic groups or perhaps even some groups which have remained within the fold, looks rather moderate or liberal. Objectively however, JPII is a conservative when one views the entire spectrum of theological views with a bird’s-eye view.

In any case it seems clear to me that no great harm will come to the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church if men with a vocation to the priesthood are permitted to marry–leaving those with a vocation not only to priestly service but to celibacy to take upon themselves the additional vows as appropriate. Overall, your church is experiencing a net loss of priests, with the real crisis yet ahead of you. The conservative parishes which are feeding your need for vocations seem not to be meeting the need–perhaps they could do so more ably if married men were allowed the priesthood. And I would note that married people in general are more conservative in their views than single folks–in just a generation or two you could well overwhelm the tide of liberalism in your clergy by this single move. My thoughts.

 

[flameburns623]

ByzCath:

The Eastern Catholics have a married priesthood, the Orthodox Churches have a married priesthood, many (if not all) protestant denominations have married ministers… And they are all hurting from a lack of vocations.

PROTESTANTS are dealing with a lack of vocations? You are sadly misinformed, at least among Evangelical Protestants. Southern Baptists, Missouri Synod Lutherans, Independent Christian Churches, etcetera, are WAY over the top in terms of the numbers of ministers needed. Many end up serving ‘liberal’ denominations–none too happily on either side, btw–or taking a pastorate in an obscure outpost just to acquire enough time ‘in harness’ to be serously considered by larger congregations in more populous areas. Again: it appears it is liberalism far more than any other factor which determines what inspires men to enter ministerial service. The more liberal the seminary or the denomination, the less likely the denomination is to attract members. My impression is that those Orthodox groups which are less-ecumenical (and less liberal in general) also have no problems with vocations. Research which discriminates between vocations within theologically conservative groups as opposed to those within theologically moderate or liberal ones might well move discussions such as this one along. Within Roman Catholicism, it may well be the rampant liberalism both in theology and in morals which is as much an impediment to vocations as marital status. Isn’t there a Catholic seminary in Kentucky or Tennesee or some such place which is extremely conservative AND which is busting at the seams with seminarians? I know the LC/MS seminary here in St. Louis, the Bible Baptist college, and the (Independent) Christian Churches college are all full-up, every year, with candidates for ministry. Last that I knew, the Seventh-day Adventists were also chockful of ministers–yes, I realize they are an aberrant group, but for purposes of this discussion they are nothing if not thoroughly conservative in their theology and practice.

 

[Carl]

The Eastern Catholics have a married priesthood, the Orthodox Churches have a married priesthood, many (if not all) protestant denominations have married ministers… And they are all hurting from a lack of vocations.

Aside from the fact that this is not quite true (nor do you offer documentation that it is) the notion that the needed number of married men would not consider the priesthood is also unproven. Common sense suggests that at least a significant number of currently married Catholics, deeply religious and useful in the vineyard, would answer the call. They do so in the Protestant Churches. Why wouldn’t they do so in the Catholic as well?

 

[Carl]

flameburns

Last that I knew, the Seventh-day Adventists were also chockful of ministers–yes, I realize they are an aberrant group, but for purposes of this discussion they are nothing if not thoroughly conservative in their theology and practice.

Well said, the Catholic Church is not alone in preaching a conservative theology. And Adventists preachers as a rule are married.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Eastern Catholics have a married priesthood, the Orthodox Churches have a married priesthood, many (if not all) protestant denominations have married ministers… And they are all hurting from a lack of vocations.

Aside from the fact that this is not quite true (nor do you offer documentation that it is) the notion that the needed number of married men would not consider the priesthood is also unproven. Common sense suggests that at least a significant number of currently married Catholics, deeply religious and useful in the vineyard, would answer the call. They do so in the Protestant Churches. Why wouldn’t they do so in the Catholic as well?

Nor do you provide any documentation to support your claims.

Odds are that they would not approach to become married priests becuase the pay would not be there.

This is an issue that seems to be ignored by those calling for a married priesthood in the Latin Church.

How do we pay these men, where do they live with their families, how do we pay for the extra healthcare costs?

I have seen studies that show that protestants are hurting for ministers, not as much as Catholics and Orthodox, but when each church is responsible for hiring and fireing their ministers…

You can not really compare protestants to Catholics…

But the Orthodox can be compared to and the married priesthood has not stopped them from a lack of vocations…

There are other issues that need to be addressed before the vocation “crisis” will end.

Can you explain how the orthodox dioceses are exploding with vocations and they do not have a married priesthood? Can you explain how the orthodox religious orders (who would stay celibate even if a diocesen married priesthood is allowed) are growing at a fast rate?

Your arguments just don’t hold up.

 

[Brendan]

The Eastern Catholics have a married priesthood, the Orthodox Churches have a married priesthood, many (if not all) protestant denominations have married ministers… And they are all hurting from a lack of vocations.

Aside from the fact that this is not quite true (nor do you offer documentation that it is)

Protestant churches struggle to fill pulpits - USA Today

From the article

In the Presbyterian Church (USA), one in three churches is without a permanent pastor — meaning approximately 4,000 churches rely on substitutes or lay leaders. In at least two other denominations — the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Reformed Church in America — one in five congregations lacks a permanent pastor.

Nor are Christian churches alone. The nation’s largest Jewish denomination reports a shortage of rabbis. And related fields, such as military chaplaincies, are finding shortages across all religions.

1 in 3 congregations without a permanant pastor. They are worse off that us!!

Pastors, like other middle-class professionals who used to be sole breadwinners, increasingly need spouses’ incomes to support families, Stuck and others said. Pastors often won’t take jobs in smaller communities — where they’re needed most — that lack career opportunities for their spouses.

And why would that be different for Catholics. In fact, it could lead to some real marital strife.

In Protestant denoms, the clergy have some control over what assignments they take. They effectively apply to the parish council for a position. Thus they only move when they want to and can easily refuse to move to a parish.

Catholic clergy have no such control. They must be fully obedient to the Bishop. If the bishop transfers them to a remote parish, the priest, his spouse and family have no say in the matter.