Posted on 10/22/2005 2:09:46 PM PDT by gpapa
A synod of Catholic bishops has clearly reaffirmed priestly celibacy and ruled out allowing clergy to marry as a solution to the crisis of vocations facing the church worldwide.
The working sessions of the three-week synod, the first of Pope Benedict XVI's papacy, closed with 50 propositions and a message to the world from the more than 250 bishops.
Overall, the synod's decisions have dashed the hopes of some liberal Catholics for movement on issues such as married priests, celibacy and the divorced faithful.
(Excerpt) Read more at smh.com.au ...
FormerLib,
You wrote: "Odd, isn't He the one who selected Peter, a married man? Sounds as if He ended it as well."
Who says Peter was married when Jesus selected him? He is described as having a mother-in-law. That doesn't mean that his wife was still alive at the time. Besides, Jesus picked men who were unmarried as well as far as we know. Your point tells us nothing. Christ IS THE HIGH PRIEST. He was celibate.
Sinkspur,
You wrote: "Odd, isn't it? Married Protestants can be Catholic priests if they convert, but lifelong Catholic men who are married cannot be priests. Makes no sense."
Actually it makes perfect sense. Those outside the Church did not realize their vocation until later in life after joining the church. Also, it helps heal the schisms of the 16th century. It simply has nothing to do with men who were already in the church, already Catholic, already knew they had a vocation and already took a vow of celibacy.
This has nothing to do with priests marrying.
But the idea that the Church can allow married Protestants to convert, be re-ordained as Catholic priests and remain married, but will not, under any circumstances, consider ordaining a married Catholic man is theologically inconsistent.
The Church can do what it wants to do, but it will continue to hemorrhage priests in the west until some group of responsible bishops decides to force the issue.
This latest synod was nothing but three weeks in Rome for 256 bishops. They accomplished nothing.
Sinkspur,
You wrote: "If women decided to not participate in Church ministry, or stopped coming to Church, the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church would collapse."
The Church is built upon the participation of Christ and the Holy Spirit more than the participation of either gender exclusive of the other. Feminists seem to forget that before the 1960's there were few if any women in what is commonly called "ministry" outside of hospitals or schools. Do you think the Church of the 1950's or before was anywhere near collapse? If you do believe so, then please let me know because I have some Florida swamp land I'd like to sell you.
Women are absolutely necessary for the life of the Church over the generations, but not in a public leadership capacity. Every child's first religion teacher is his mother, for instance. This does not mean that we need (or want) to have women in leadership positions in the Church. We never did before the 1960's and it seems to me that those 16 previous centuries were at least as glorious as the past few decades for the church (actually much more so).
When you can present evidence that the Church needs women in leadership positions for any other reason than to satisfy the mad ravings of feminists or ill-catechised women let me know.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
As I understand it, the Eastern Orthodox church requires priests to be married because of this particular passage. I'm not trying to be iireverent here, I genuinely want to know how they reconcile their position.
I don't think much of bishops, especially after their disgraceful mafiosi-like behavior in the sexual abuse fiasco.
I'd rather listen to a dedicated Catholic woman than a pompous ecclesiastic any day of the week.
While Jesus may have been celibate and he asked his disciples to follow him, the church certainly took it's time making it the rule. So were they ignoring Jesus?
There is no proof that the church needs men as leaders just as there is no counter proof that they need women. You're using illogic to try to put down the other poster's views.
Some of your comments are false and others are just misdirection.
It takes the church a few centuries to turn around. We have married priests now, but that's okay, is it? When the church allows married priests, people like you will be stuck on go, and there will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth. But the conclusion will be, it was a stupid rule and it will be forgotten a few years later.
Unlike many other faiths, the priests take a vow of poverty
Diocesan priests (those not belonging to any particular order) do not take vows of poverty.
FSSP, Legionaries, etc. literally can't build seminary housing fast enough for the number of applicants they get.
I'll have to look that up. I have a friend in vocations and nobody seems to be beating his door down. Please don't say anything about him not being a good priest. I don't know any bad ones.
The Eastern Church allows deacons and priests to be married before ordination. Eastern Bishops may not be married before ordination. None may be married after ordination.
The Western or Roman Catholic Church only allows deacons to be married before ordination, but not afterward.
The Roman Catholic Church also recognizes Eastern Church ordinations as valid.
They live in poverty except the few who came into the priesthood with assets.
The real estate, churches and all assets belong to the faith for the people. To serve current and future generations.
This has no basis in the Bible. Celibacy has long since outlived its land-controlling usefulness for the Vatican. Ditch it now, so the Catholic Chuch can weed out the sodomites, grow stronger and help push back Satanic Islam worldwide.
No, you are incorrect. If you belong to an ORDER (benedictine, Franciscan, etc) you take a vow of poverty and everything you earn goes to support your community. If you are a diocesan priest, you are paid a living wage, and you can buy your own car, etc. They can't own the Church's assets of course, but they have thier own money to do with what they want.
Sinkspur,
You wrote: "This has nothing to do with priests marrying."
Yes, actually it does.
"But the idea that the Church can allow married Protestants to convert, be re-ordained as Catholic priests and remain married, but will not, under any circumstances, consider ordaining a married Catholic man is theologically inconsistent."
No, your thinking, or attempts at it are inconsistent. Look at what you wrote: "...be re-ordained.." There is no such concept. Once ordained, always ordained. You don't seem to understand these basic ideas. Also, none of this really has anything to do with theology so how can it be inconsistent? This is a discipline and not a theological point. Why do you claim otherwise? Again, you seem to be unaware of these basic facts. Also, the Catholic Church, under very specific and difficult circumstances (unlike the "not, under any circumstances" nonsense you're claiming) has ordained married men within the last few decades. There is the famous Czech case for instance where dozens of men, all married, were secretly ordained to make sure there were priests in a communist society that was attacking the Church. You never heard of that of course.
"The Church can do what it wants to do, but it will continue to hemorrhage priests in the west until some group of responsible bishops decides to force the issue."
Responsible bishops? Look, do you realize that the orthodox diocese are not really struggling with vocations? Lincoln Nebraska has two FULL seminaries. Care to explain that to me? I know the reason why. The bishop there is orthodox.
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1993/sep1993p4_808.html
A bishop in Australia, in Wagga Wagga I think, opened a diocesan seminary with almost no money because he was terribly disatisfied with the seminary educations given his young men in liberal diocese. The other bishops said no one would come. It was full within two or three years. Teach the truth and people will come.
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/mar2005p3_1865.html
You can keep living in the 1970's all you want, but that decade is long over.
"This latest synod was nothing but three weeks in Rome for 256 bishops. They accomplished nothing."
No, they did accomplish something -- they heard their pope put his foot down on the idea of watering down discipline and doctrine just to please people with little faith like you. It is the rest of us, those who actually have a clue, and don't want the Church to become more Protestantized, who will still be around (with full parishes and plenty of vocations) in the years to come.
I have presented proof of what I claimed. Care to respond in kind?
Your career goals are still stymied, eh?
Too bad. So sad.
So, you're saying any priest who isn't married or gay is a pedophile?
You're an idiot of the highest order.
The pedophile problem is not unique to the Catholic church.
What about priests who leave the church to get married? Can they be ordained?
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.