Vatican synod rules out married priests

Australian Associated Press (AAP) ^ | October 23, 2005 | Unattributed

[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.

[Petronski]

This thread has become an "aw geez, not this crap again" moment.

[vladimir998]

Bigsigh,

You wrote: "Every child's first religion teacher is not his mother."

In a Christian family yes it is so. While dad is off at work, who prays with the child? Who teaches him to make the sign of the cross from infancy?


"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?"

No. The Church always had some celibate priests. It did not take its time in following Christ. It took its time in requiring a vow -- just as it should take its time in such an important decision.

"There is no proof that the church needs men as leaders just as there is no counter proof that they need women."

What? If there are no men to lead then who will? Not women. That isn't their role in the church.

"You're using illogic to try to put down the other poster's views."

No, I used sarcasm to put down to put down the other poster's views. I used no illogic. I leave that to you and them.

"Some of your comments are false and others are just misdirection."

And your examples are....? Yeah, just like I thought. None.

"It takes the church a few centuries to turn around."

Turn around from what? You are seemingly predicating this on a strange belief whatever that is. There is no problem with celibacy. There is nothing to turn around from. The vocations crisis has nothing to do with marriage or celibacy and has everything to do with the following:

1) worldly culture that emphasizes sex at every turn
2) lousy bishops who stopped doing their job 40 years ago
3) lousy seminary training that assumed seminarians would be allowed to marry any moment now (back in the 1960's!)
4) general idiocy from poorly catechized Catholics who, rather than support their priests in their celibacy, do everything they can to whine and attack it.
5) contraceptive mentality that made sex easy and "cheap," helped created our "presentist" culture soaked in sexuality, and led to ever smaller "Catholic" families that are terrified of their only son becoming a priest. When families had seven kids it was considered an honor to have a son join the priesthood.

That's why their is a vocations crisis. No where in that list did you see "marriage' or "celibacy" nor should you. If celibacy was the issue then there would have been a vocations crisis 100 years ago, or 300 years ago, etc. There were no such crises. Refute my logic if you can. I know you can't, but it might amuse us nonetheless.

"We have married priests now, but that's okay, is it?"

We've always had some married priests in the Church. Hello, earth to poorly catechized Catholic! Hello!

"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."

Uh, Bigsigh, the Church just said a big "NO" to married clergy. What part of that "NO" did you not understand? It isn't going to change. Vocations are up overall around the world. The "pressure" to have married clergy will actually lessen in years to come. GET OUT OF THE 1970'S !!!

"But the conclusion will be, it was a stupid rule and it will be forgotten a few years later."

A thousand year old rule will be forgotten? You are clueless. Just about every saint you ever heard of being canonized was celibate. Think of a parish church. It was probably named after a celibate saint. All the great missionaries? Celibate. All the popes of the last however many centuries? Celibate. If you think that is all going to go away in a few years than you really are out of touch. Again, orthodox seminaries are almost all full -- even in the Western world. Wake up! A parish ninety minutes from me has produced something like 60 vocations in 40 or so years. They have had the same CELIBATE priest throughout that whole time. Gee, I wonder how he did it without being married and without having women run the parish?

Bigsigh, the 1970's called they would like their malaise, cynicism, and weakness back.

[The Iguana]

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.

They have opened up something of a door there.

Given the the prevalent mindset, the natural conclusion would be to eliminate the convert priests.

But given current efforts to bring over much of the Traditional Anglican Communion, that seems unlikely.

Interestingly, those bishops at the Synod most opposed to the idea of relaxing the celibacy discipline were the Eastern Rite bishops, who argued that the married priesthood had, for them, created as many problems as it solved.

[The Iguana]

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.

They have opened up something of a door there.

Given the the prevalent mindset, the natural conclusion would be to eliminate the convert priests.

But given current efforts to bring over much of the Traditional Anglican Communion, that seems unlikely.

Interestingly, those bishops at the Synod most opposed to the idea of relaxing the celibacy discipline were the Eastern Rite bishops, who argued that the married priesthood had, for them, created as many problems as it solved.

[The Iguana]

I'd rather listen to a dedicated Catholic woman than a pompous ecclesiastic any day of the week.

So would I so long as she's orthodox.

[onyx]

As usual.

[Petronski]

so long as she's orthodox.

I doubt that's what "the deacon" had in mind. LOL

[NYer]

If women decided to not participate in Church ministry, or stopped coming to Church, the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church would collapse.

Nonsense! It's the women who are driving men away.

[sinkspur]

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.

Is it your contention that the Anglican Church has valid orders?

It is a fact that all men who who have come into the Church under the Anglican dispensation have been "ordained" Catholic priests. That is, they have been "re-ordained" to supersede their previous ordinations as Anglicans.

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.

The pope didn't say a word about the issue. The re-emphasis on celibacy was decided by the bishops themselves, and the document came out under the Pope's signature. Unlike John Paul II, at least Benedict XVI allowed the subject of married priests to be broached, and be discussed. It will likely be discussed again.

We should all pray for vocations, but the number of men in seminaries today will not be sufficient in number to replace those who are dying, retiring, or leaving. That is a fact.

Your snide little comment at the end indicates you don't really want to exchange thoughts about this; you'd rather sit in judgment.

So, adios.

[sinkspur]

What about priests who leave the church to get married? Can they be ordained?

They're already ordained. If the Pope chose to, he could simply lift the prohibition against allowing them to return, and they could return. Once a priest, always a priest.

[Petronski]

Trust me, he won't.

[sinkspur]

Interestingly, those bishops at the Synod most opposed to the idea of relaxing the celibacy discipline were the Eastern Rite bishops, who argued that the married priesthood had, for them, created as many problems as it solved.

Well, that's not exactly correct. They cautioned against the notion that allowing married priests in the Latin Rite would magically "fix" the shortage of priests, but they did say that married priests in their Rites had done much good. Of course the mindset in the typical Catholic parish would have to change if married men were universally admitted to the priesthood. Likely, the practice of ordaining older married men who were somewhat financially stable and did not have huge commitments to small children would be the initial practice.

[Petronski]

Of course the mindset in the typical Catholic parish would have to change if married men were universally admitted to the priesthood.

Too true. They would have to learn to accept what is wrong.

[sinkspur]

Nonsense! It's the women who are driving men away.

That's not likely. The fact is that all denominations are experiencing a dearth of males in attendance at weekly mass, or services, or synagogue. Religion has been largely reduced to something that women do, and men support them in it, but not by accompanying them to mass. This gradual change has been occurring for years.

[sinkspur]

They would have to learn to accept what is wrong.

No. They would have to give up being skinflints.

Catholics are misers compared to the stewardship of most Protestant congregations.

[Petronski]

Your indictment of Catholics knows no end. It's hilarious and sad all at once.

[Petronski]

And your contention--what? that Catholics would approve of married clergy if it weren't so derned expensive--is ludicrous.


You see the Church and the world through your own crass ambitions. It's transparent.

[sinkspur]

Your indictment of Catholics knows no end.

I suspect most parishes are like mine, where 800 out of 2500 families give 95% of everything in the Sunday collection.

We average $30,000 per week. That means 800 families give an average of $36.00 per week (some give much more, so some, by definition, give less).

The remaining 1700 families give $1500 per week.

You can do the math on that one.

[Petronski]

Which parish is that?

Where do you get off extrapolating your unsubstantiated/undocumented numbers to all Catholics?

How (again) is this relevant to married clergy?

[sinkspur]

And your contention--what? that Catholics would approve of married clergy if it weren't so derned expensive--is ludicrous.

Catholics already approve of married clergy. Every survey taken in the last 30 years indicates that, overwhelmingly, Catholics would support married priests.

Now, they likely haven't thought through what that means. But, they already support married liturgists, married Religious Ed directors, and various married parish staff. So, anteing up a bit more for a married priest or two wouldn't be so dire, especially given my previous example of how little Catholics actually give to their parishes.