Vatican Cardinal: Church should consider married priests in some cases

LifeSiteNews ^ | 01/24/2018 | Claire Chretien

[Architect of Avalon]

My statement was that married straight priests (priests who meet both of those conditions) are better than single gay priests (priests that meet both of those conditions).

[ealgeone]

Your denom --- whatever it is --- doesn't even believe in an ordained, ministerial priesthood, does it?

Not in the Roman Catholic sense no.

Our pastors are men who were called by God to serve in His church. The Biblical qualifications as outlined in Timothy and Titus are followed in calling these men to serve.

They are not priests who stand daily offering up a sacrifice. That was done away with through the resurrection.

They do not call Christ down to be re-sacrificed over and over and over again as in Roman Catholicism as that contradicts the New Testament.

But you're in the position to tell us what the qualifications are?

It's not me...it's Paul. You disagree, take it up with him.

[ealgeone]

Married men are less likely to die for their faith than single ones;

Don't be so sure of that.

[ealgeone]

That's a supposition of yours, though, that many of the Apostles were married. Many? Six of the 12? Or even one? You can't name one wife of one of the twelve Apostles.

Even though we know Peter "had been" married --- because he had a mother-in-law who was cured of a fever by Christ--- it is never explained whether Peter was at that time a married man or a widower. I notice no wife is mentioned as being present or alive at the time of the mother-n-law's illness.

You've really got to stay away from Catholic Answers....some of the most embarrassing apologetics I've seen for Roman Catholicism.

I really cannot believe you posted this nonsense.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, gay men are not appropriate for the priesthood at all. And I mean "not appropriate" even if they are striving to be totally sexually continent. A chaste man with persisting homosexual drives/temptations would find the seminary environment a "near occasion of sin" --- a place abounding in appealing, sympatico young men, and therefore a place abounding in temptations.

And it seems to me that a chaste person struggling with same-sex attractions would realize, himself, that the priesthood would present him with ongoing stress and turmoil because of his vulnerability to male attractiveness.

Gay men should not be in seminary, let alone in the priesthood.

In any context, they may have a long and lonely struggle. I would suggest a specialized spiritual support group, like Courage (LINK), a Catholic movement which ministers to persons with same-sex attractions and helps them flourish spiritually while living the way of chastity.

[Mrs. Don-o]

This is not the first time you've done this: attributing to me associations and influences which don't exist. This is frankly so tedious.

I don't have any connection with Catholic Answers. I suppose they're a fine group, I simply have no contact with them.

Why don't you argue on the basis of evidence? Of course, if you haven't any evidence, I can see where that would put you at a disadvantage.

[Architect of Avalon]

I agree, but the point was that married straight priests are better than gay priests.

Straight men should be drawn to marriage.

Keeping those straight men who are drawn to marriage from being priests is a problem.

[ebb tide]

“From the election of his successor, Pope Francis—on 13 March 2013—there are not then two Popes, but de facto an enlarged ministry with an active and a contemplative member. For this reason, Benedict has not renounced either his name or his white cassock. For this reason, the correct title with which we must refer to him is still “Holiness.” Furthermore, he has not retired to an isolated monastery, but [has retired] within the Vatican, as if he had simply stepped aside to make space for his Successor, and for a new stage in the history of the Papacy, which he, with that step, has enriched with the centrality of payer and of compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.”

“So it is not surprising that some have seen it as revolutionary, or otherwise as entirely consistent with the gospel, while still others see in this way a secularized papacy as never before, and thus more collegial and functional, or even simply more humane and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.”

Archbishop Georg Ganswein; May 20, 2016

https://onepeterfive.com/abp-ganswein-pope-benedict-part-enlarged-papal-ministry/

[Mrs. Don-o]

I know there are married men who want to serve God as ordained clergy. Is there anything keeping these men from being deacons?

[metmom]

Even when Scripture tells us that forbidding of marriage is the mark of a cult, they double down on their doctrine over Scripture.

And they wonder why the Catholic church is in the shape its in.

[metmom]

Prove they abandoned their wives, which you ignored completely after making the statement.

[ealgeone]

I reference Catholic Answers as your some of your reply sounds very familiar to theirs.

Plus, in the past you've posted material that is not yours without referencing the source while passing it off as yours.

[Mrs. Don-o]

First, people who are arguing on the basis of evidence invariably have the same or similar evidence, since they are dealing with history, which is, as I pointed out, stuff that actually happened.

If you have no evidence, I can see why you would prefer to argue on something other than an evidence-based model.

Second, everybody on this forum cuts-and-pastes. Footnotes are rare. If you ask for sources, however, I am always ready to oblige.

If you wish to look into the marital status of the Apostles, I recommend looking in the New Testament. For early (First and Second Century) Bishops, I would suggest you look up the Apostolic Fathers. To go a lit later, research the Ante-Nicene Fathers. It is perfectly honorable to Google those very words.

When you have evidence of the existence of spouses, I am all ears.

Good evening to you.

[boatbums]

If it had meant “must be married” it would have said “must be married”. But in fact the same Apostle wrote that it was better not to marry. Did he contradict himself? Of course not.

Paul qualified his advice:

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away. (I Cor. 7:25-31)

[boatbums]

Have we no right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? (I Cor. 9:5)

[kearnyirish2]

Oh, I see; they were all widowers, or brought their wives to places where people hated them enough to kill them?

[metmom]

Answer the question.

Provide proof of your assertion that the apostles abandoned their wives.

You made the claim. Back it up.

[metmom]

Isn’t it amazing how people reject the clear meaning of a passage because it’s not worded in a say that they think it should have been.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Yes, 1 Cor 9:5 is a very good catch, but not an unambiguous "proof" that the Apostles maintained marital relations with their wives (if they had wives).

The Greek term used in this passage is adelphên gynaika (literally "sister woman") and is translated as such in many languages, such as as femme croyante (believing woman) in French. As you can see in these various English translations, the older and more literal translations maintain the Greek literal word "sister": --- please note the various iterations of the "King James Version", the "Aramaic Bible in Plain English", the "Darby," the "Webster," the "Weymouth," and the "Young's Literal Translation."

always means "wife," you're kinda stuck because most5 times when used in the NT is clearly means just "wo,man." If you take the position that "sister" doesn't necessarily mean "sister," yuou're stuck because --- well, IU've always been lectured by non-Catholics here on FR, that "sister" means literal "sister," as in "the brothers and sisters of Jesus." But I don't think you'd insist on "literal sister" at this point.

To get how the early Church interpreted ths, you'd have to look at, er, how the early Church interpreted this.

And there's no evidence for married Bishops.

There IS evidence for Apostles and Bishops having woman assistants. Jesus Himself (a celibate), welcomed women who assisted and supported His mission, as had Paul (a celibate) and his companions.

I'm out for most of the day, but would be glad to resume this discussion later if you like.

[ealgeone]

Yet, later, on Rome did force their priests to do just that...abandon their wives.

One of the primary drivers behind Roman Catholicism requiring their priests to be single was economics.

This group will say one thing over here and something else over there to deflect their real intentions.