Posted on 01/04/2005 2:34:33 PM PST by churchillbuff
True.
but there is absolutely no reason to do so. That discipline has served the Church well for centuries
Ah, well, isn't that the crux of the debate? A strong argument can be made, that it does NOT serve the Church well in this day and age. It may indeed be your only hope of dehomosexualizing your priesthood. I'd go so far as to say, ordain ONLY married priests from now on.
OOPS! last ping to GerardP, not Gerard
Your personal opinion of the late Fr. Malachi Martin, his life, and writings ntowithstanding, you cannot say anything derogatory in regard to him and the issue of celibacy. He retained his vow of celibacy for the rest of his life, and remained a priest, though no longer a member of the Jesuit order. That much we know to be true.
In regard to his "doom and gloom" fictions - kindly prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was wrong. You may dislike him or his writings - but you cannot positively dispute what he said.
Your pushing what I said around to make it easier to debate it. My suggestion you are a modernist isn’t based on one post about this Church discipline. Rather, its based on what I’ve seen from you over the last couple years. You do tend to be a modernist sinkspur, do you not? You do prefer the modern styles of things in the American Church, don’t you? Correct me where I’m wrong.You view the issue from an secularized American lens (or modernist Catholic if you prefer that term)Of course. If I don't agree with you about a changeable Church discipline, I must be a modernist. That's cheap, patent, and you're above that.
FR tends, both politically and religiously, to be further to the right than both the American population and the Catholic population. The fact is, surveys among Catholics, for 25 years, have shown that the American Catholic population favors opening the priesthood to married men.These surveys are pretty mixed, IMHO. Regardless, surveys have also shown that in this same subset of the population there are large contingents that (1) don’t reliably attend Mass, (2) have no idea what the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is, (3) dissent on various other issues, e.g., nearly all the sexual issues, and (4) often have theological views that are more Protestant than Catholic. While a married priesthood is far less threatening to me than many of the above are, I don’t care to take advice on the Church's direction from that subset of American Catholics that could care less what is or is not Catholic.
patent
You're probably right - only problem is that most of our clergy are neither married nor celibate. I think you'll find that the abuse rate among married clergy is significantly less than that among homosexual clergy.I’m all in favor of keeping the homosexual clergy out – that wasn’t the issue.
patent
Vocations are not growing in the West. The American Church would require over 800 ordinations a year (twice the current number) just to keep up with the loss of priests who leave, die or retire from active ministry.Depends on where you look. In conservative dioceses the vocations are growing. In liberal dioceses they are dropping. Overall we have leveled out, and I suspect will be rising soon. We are hovering around 500/year right now, and I think it will go up from there quickly.
patent
Well, this is what Protestants and Catholics who think like Protestants might say, but it is refuted by history. The celibate Catholic priesthood has produced saint upon saint, men whose deeds still amaze. To take just one example, read about the Jesuit missionaries among the Huron Indians. Their courage and devotion impressed even the New England historian Francis Parkman, in spite of his own anti-Catholicism. That courage and devotion was certainly aided by the fact that these men were celibate.
The problems afflicting the priesthood in America are of recent vintage and their cause is liberalism, not celibacy.
And as for your suggestion that only married man be ordained, that would be contrary to the example of Our Lord, the exhortation of St. Paul for those who were unmarried to remain that way, and many centuries of tradition. The list of saints who have extolled celibacy is very long indeed.
The only thing married priest will change is that we will then have divorced priests once their wives figure out how very little time they will have with their husbands, even less time for their children etc.
People need to talk to the married pastors in Protestant churches and get the real story....
>>>>but only 400 priests are ordained?
500, actually.
Well yes we do...
Celibacy of Priests: explanation link
The fact that the apostles were married says nothing about the practice, since they were Jewish and followed the practices of their day, until Christ came along. Tradition affirms that they remained celibates after they followed Christ.
Why isn't a serious discussion encouraged between clergy and young men to try to find out why they are not interested in the priesthood? I don't get the impression that most priests or bishops today much care about encouraging men to consider the priesthood, or why men have no interest in following them.Personally, I think that your request that the Church try to talk to young men and determine why they aren't interested in vocations would be a good idea, but then that would require the Church to actually TALK to young men about vocations, something most priests have not done for decades.But, the Catholic Church thinks corny stuff like sending clay chalices home with families whose kids are all grown and in other professions, who are then told to pray for more priests and deacons, will work.
Used to be that many parish priests considered it part of their mission to talk to the young men about vocations. It worked, that put the idea in many heads. Even today, when you go to parishes where the priest talks to young men about it you very often a high level of vocations.
Were priests (and parents, of course) to start fostering vocations by actually discussing it with young men instead of sending home clay chalices, I think the vocations level would rise dramatically. The "pray for vocations" movement, when its not accompanied by one on one interaction, is about as successful as never discussing sex or drugs with your kid, and then simply hoping they don't get into it. You want something from a kid, talk to them about it.
As it stands, if you ask these young men why they didn't chose a vocation, the standard answer would be that they never thought about it. Becuase they didn't. Becuase no one asked them to.
patent
The insistence on celibates-only was also contrary to centuries of tradition, and to the Scriptures which specifically reference married bishops (1st Tim 3) and note that in contrast to Paul, the other Apostles were married and had a RIGHT to be (1 Cor. 9:5) -- including, I might add, "Pope Peter the First".
So if one valid discipline (celibate priests) can be arbitrarily imposed at the expense of another (married priests), for what probably seemed like good reasons at the time, why can't the reciprocal decision be made in a different era when different issues are at stake? I agree the problem is ultimately liberalism. But if allowing (or even requiring) married priests can help resist it, or mitigate its damage, why not?
Look, I'm an Evangelical for a variety of reasons which I won't get into here. But much as I may disagree with the Catholic Church on certain theological issues, I stand with you in the realm of public morality and I want to see you solve this sodomite priest problem as badly as you do.
The council of Elvira went further:
Already in 305 A.D. (that’s very early), before the Church’s liberation under Constantine, the Council of Elvira in Spain passed the following decree: “That bishops, priests and deacons, and in general all the clergy, who are specially employed in the service of the altar, abstain from conjugal intercourse. Let those who persist be degraded from the ranks of the clergy” (Can. 33). And by the end of the fourth century, the Second Council of Carthage in Africa declared, “What the apostles taught in the early Church preserved, let us too observe.”
For further background on celibacy check out: Link to Fr. Hardon archive on celibacy
One solves problems by addressing the real issue, which, as you agree, is liberalism. Abolishing clerical celibacy to address a temporary problem caused by liberalism risks permanently discarding a tradition that has proved valuable in the past for the sake of a palliative to a temporary problem.
>>>>>>>Look, I'm an Evangelical for a variety of reasons which I won't get into here. But much as I may disagree with the Catholic Church on certain theological issues, I stand with you in the realm of public morality and I want to see you solve this sodomite priest problem as badly as you<<<<<<<
I appreciate your good will toward the Church. Thanks.
"Modernist" has a specific meaning, patent. A very derogatory meaning. Liking modern "styles" would make me a "modern stylist", would it not?
>>>"Modernist" has a specific meaning, patent. A very derogatory meaning. Liking modern "styles" would make me a "modern stylist", would it not?
OK, a modern stylist then. I'm going to have a hard time remembering that though.
patent
Last question -- why was clerical matrimony abolished a thousand years ago? What problem were they trying to solve, back then? Is it still in existence a thousand years later, or was it temporary?
100% correct.
Pick your battles. Get rid of the queers even if you have to sacrifice priestly celibacy to do it.
That's not picking a battle, that's surrendering. The whole point of homosexuals being in the preisthood and encouraged, IS to remove the celibate priesthood. The modernists will not be content with the Latins having equivalent married priesthoods to the Easterns and the Easterns have their own liberals with nothing to restrain them from pushing forward towards female priesthood and eventually completely secular priests.
And take down that damned medal in the Vatican celebrating the murder of the Huguenots, while you're at it.
Maybe, when they apologize and convert.
I followed the link. Here is the entirety of the "admission":
I spoke with Fr. Vincent O'Keefe, former vicar general of the Society of Jesus who is now retired. According to Fr. O'Keefe, Malachi Martin was indeed dispensed from his vows of poverty and obedience but not the vow of chastity. At the time Martin requested such dispensation, the Vatican was not dispensing priests who so requested such dispensation from the vow of chastity or celibacy. Fr. O'Keefe pointed out that Martin never married. His obituary in the New York Times, however, points out that Martin lived with a female companion.Fr. Widner
Where does this say anything about a celebret?
An abuse!
Another example is the freedom enjoyed by priests of the Oriental and Greek church to remain married to their wives after their ordination (see can. Aliter, dist. 31 and chap. Cum olim, de Clericis Conjugatis). Considering that this practice was at variance neither with divine nor natural law, but only with Church discipline, the popes judged it right to tolerate this custom, which flourished among Greeks and Orientals, rather than to forbid it by their apostolic authority, to avoid giving them a pretext to abandon unity. So does Arcudius assess the matter (Concordia bk. 7, chap. 33). (Pope Benedict XIV, Allatae Sunt, 22)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.