Posted on 05/24/2009 3:26:18 AM PDT by MartinaMisc
Oy vey. Here we go. There are many ways for a married man to serve God in the Church. Being a priest is NOT one of them. He can be a deacon, a counselor, head a ministry, work with a school system, be a director of religious education, work for catholic charities and on and on. The one thing a married man cannot be is a priest. If you are called to marriage, then you are not called to the priesthood in a Roman Catholic Church. He could even become orthodox and marry. Roman Catholics view marriage as a vocation. We also view the priesthood as a vocation. One cannot have 2 vocations. So tired of jenkinist/cutie Catholic priests. Either you are for us or against us; choose.
Well said.
We agree with you, WombToTomb - If Cutie wants to marry a woman he can always be a protestant minister, but he cannot be a Catholic Priest.
Just curious...since I’m not Catholic...what is the Biblical directive used for the celibacy of priests? We know Peter was married (how do you have a MIL if you’re not married)...and I’ve always wondered where the celibacy requirement is found in the Scriptures. Is it the Corinthians passage about how being single makes your “serving” more focused because you don’t have a wife to please?
I’ve often wondered that myself.
I wouldn’t trust him as a husband, either. A person who doesn’t care about his vows is just that.
Ego, Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,...
I wonder where in holy Scripture, New Testament or Old Testament, celibacy for priests or pastors is ever required?
Hmmmm, can’t seem to find it. But I guess Rome must know better than the Apostles, Evangelists, and Jesus Himself.
Paul says it is better to remain single and serve the Lord as a married person is very involved with material or worldy things because he has to look after a family and a wife where a single person can direct all their time to spiritual pusuits.
Mel
Enforcing celibacy was a reform effort. It wasn't needed as much in the Protestant split-off groups because they just didn't have the money or property to compare with the Church. At least, until TV ministries came along.
I am a little surprised the liberal Boston Globe isn’t denouncing this priest for being a homophobe (he wants to marry a woman instead of “marrying” another man). And surely the left will denounce him for being a potential “breeder” who will destroy the environment. And if the woman he wants to marry is attractive, he could be accused of “lookism.” The usual people who agitate for identity politics seem to be asleep at the wheel in this instance.
Thanks for the info
Dawn, I’ll be happy to answer. I have a little bit of insight into this and have given it more thought than many as my son is entering seminary next fall to be a priest.
First,I would like to point out a couple of things that are important when you consider the times that Jesus lived and chose His followers, and now.
When He began His ministry, he was a 30 year old unmarried male. He selected both single and married males to be his apostles. He did this for the same reason he baptised adults. He had to witness to the adults of the times He was in. Some were married, some were not. The adults then passed on the faith to their children, and thusly, were part of the christian faith by merit of being born in a christian family, much the same as Jesus was Jewish by virtue of being born into a Jewish family. This was the same process for selecting apostles and priests. He preached to the adults, they converted and followed Him. Since it was common and expected that most men would marry in their very early teens at that time and Jesus’ age was about 30, it was a conscieous decision for Him not to marry, and it was to be expected that most men of his age group would be married.
Paul was an exception here, and he drove the point home in scripture. He exhorted that it would be better to remain as he was (single) for the kingdom. As you mentioned, he also gives the why about it, so they can be concerned for the things of God instead of pleasing their spouse.
There are other scriptures, which I am sure will be pointed out to you, but we are not dependent on scripture alone for our Faith. Scripture itself tells us that Jesus did and said many more things than are written in this book, and if they were all written down, the world would not contain enough room to hold them all. This is where oral tradition comes in. Much of our Faith ( including putting all the writings we have today in the bible together as it did not happen until 400 years after the Church was born) was handed down by oral tradition. These teachings were the norm in Jesus’ day (hence the scripture that tells us to teach our children by speaking to them about these things when we are rising up, sitting down or whatever we are doing, to tell them of these things; to train them up in the way they should go). The early christians only had a letter here or there, there was no compiled scripture until 397 AD. The earliest christians went almost exclusively by oral tradition. Just look in Acts at the monolouge St. Stephen gave prior to his stoning. That was from memory of oral tradition. It is also very common in the world today in the middle east for this to happen, as it has always done.
I guess what I am trying to say, is that, while there is scriptural basis for all that catholics believe, we are not solely dependent upon it as we have the oral tradition that was handed down from the apostles as well. This is called our Deposit of Faith, and it is the Churches job to faithfully tend and protect it, as well as pass it down from one generation to the next. It cannot be altered, changed, added to or subtracted from. It is why we cannot flip flop on abortion, gay marriage, women priests,or any other dogma of the faith.
Priestly celibacy is not a dogma of the faith, it is a discipline of the Church, and can and is sometimes allowed in very limited circumstances. A discipline is considered the ultimate, or best way, to practice, but allows for exceptions because Jesus allowed for exceptions on a particular matter. He had NO women priests, nor have there ever been any, nor will there ever be any, but he did have married apostles. It was pointed out by Jesus’ chosen singleness, as well as Pauls exhortations, that this was preferred, but exceptions would and could be made. All of the exceptions come from a man who has been ordained a orthodox priest or a protestant minister who is already married, and converts to the Roman Catholic faith afterwards. Most of these men who want to convert are not allowed to be priests, but are ordained as deacons in the church, but there are a very few, who have the calling and would have been priests had they been Catholic at the time, they are admitted to the priesthood. I think they number under 300 in the world at this time. Generally, one who is called to marriage has NOT been called to the priesthood, they were just ignorant at the time of their marriage of their calling to the priesthood, and when they learned of their calling, they suffered. A married priest has a really tough road.
It is also noted in our Faith, that the priest acts “in persona Christi” for the faithful while consecrating the Eucharist into the body and blood of Christ and hearing confession. The priest has a bride, it is the Church. He has many children; the faithful of his parish. He is our example, our “Father” in Christ, as St. Paul pointed out so eloquently. He had, as all priests do, a claim on Fatherhood for his children in Christ. These are our truths, they are what have guided us through these 2000 plus years.
It is very well laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, along with every scriptural reference for each thing. I do recommend to anyone with questions to refer to it, as it is basically an explanation of the why we believe what we do. It is basically our primer on being Catholic; these are the rules, this is why we believe what we do. If you ever want to know why a Catholic does or doesn’t do something ( or if they should or shouldn’t be) this is the final arbitor of it.
Sorry so long, but there is rarely a one liner when it comes to explaning the Catholic position on something like this!
Of course, enforcing celibacy didn't really work all that well for this purpose. It reached its high point during the Renaissance, although most of the Popes and bishops pretended the young men they were favoring so egregiously were their nephews rather than their sons. There were exceptions, such as the Borgia popes, who were quite open about their illegitimate children.
This is how the term "nepotism" originated, which technically means "nephewism."
see post 16
post 16
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.