Posted on 05/27/2014 5:18:07 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Pope Francis on Monday said he believed that Roman Catholic priests should be celibate but the rule was not an unchangeable dogma, and "the door is always open" to change.
Francis made similar comments when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires but his remarks to reporters on a plane returning from a Middle East trip were the first he has made since becoming pope.
"Celibacy is not a dogma," he said in answer to a question about whether the Catholic Church could some day allow priests to marry as they can in some other Christian Churches.
"It is a rule of life that I appreciate very much and I think it is a gift for the Church but since it is not a dogma, the door is always open," he said.
The Church teaches that a priest should dedicate himself totally to his vocation, essentially taking the Church as his spouse, in order to help fulfill its mission.
However while priestly celibacy is a tradition going back around 1,000 years, it is not considered dogma, or an unchangeable piece of Church teaching.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
He needs to look at the episcopals and be ready for homo priest 'marriages'.
More bad reporting on the matter. It is only in the Latin Rite that priests are required to be celibate, and in no church which existed prior to the “reformation” may priests marry (for that matter neither deacons nor subdeacons may marry).
Married men may be ordained to the priesthood (and diaconate and subdiaconate). Presumably should a Pope of Rome ever decide that the Latin Rite discipline of priestly celibacy has become counterproductive, he will simply reapply the ancient canons (still in force in the East both among us Orthodox and among the Uniates) to the Latin Rite.
Actually permitting priest to marry would be an impediment to reunion with the Orthodox — we are very clear about the matter and hold to the ancient canons: married men may be ordained, but those already in major orders (or the subdiaconate) may not marry without being laicized.
A Catholic priest, who is “in persona Christi,” is married to His bride, the Church. This devotion is part of his way of “laying down his life for his friends.”
That’s not true.
Anyway, why do people like the press care so much about priests being married or not?
What do they care?
Because liberals invariably hate the discipline of celibacy. I mean try to find one person who accepts abortion, ‘gay marriage,’ and priestesses who also thinks the discipline of celibacy is valuable and should be continued. They just aren’t out there, they all hate it. Thus it is a very interesting topic to the media.
Freegards
As was previously posted...Thomas More was not a clergyman, he was a lawyer. An honest and good one at that. He died for his beliefs.
Also, as Pope Francis stated, “mandatory” celibacy as practiced in the west amongst Roman Catholics is not a dogma but a discipline that could revert back to a voluntary discipline as practiced in the Eastern Orthodox and also the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church that are in communion with Rome.
It’s amazing how many don’t realize we already have married priests. I’ve known several excellent married priests in my own diocese, one who was the President of Providence College. The debate about mandatory or voluntary has been and is a hot debate with valid concerns on both sides. But debate aside, historical facts bear out a constant history of a married clergy.
That’s right, Thomas More was never a priest.
Facts do not get in the way of most comments about the Church here on FR.
If as much untruth were stated about politics and American and World history here, it would be a completely unreliable forum.
The Church, however, is fair game.
Now watch the flames.
The spectacle of that much humble self-control excites their envy and hatred. They want it to go away. By the way, as Catholics watching the demographics closely are aware, it's true that priests retiring are creating a shortage of priests at the older end—but vocations among young men have been ticking upward. The vast majority are very orthodox—and believe in priestly celibacy.
The "modern" questioning of celibacy comes around on the guitar regularly. In the 17th century, St. Francis de Sales was told by a talkative matron who came regularly for Confession and spiritual direction that she really thought priests should be allowed to marry.
He replied, "Madam, if I had a wife and family to care for, I could not possibly spend this much time talking to you."
Then the church would have to pay a decent salary. Or the priest’s wife would be on food stamps and the kids would get free school lunches.
They could work during the week. Maybe as counselors. No reason why it couldn’t be done.
Oh, yes. There are all such predictions from people who claim to know much better than the Church about marriage and behavior.
The preoccupation of people concerned over the married status of priests is outweighed only by the terrible state of marriage in the Western world.
All the while the priesthood and the Church experiences a great waning of population and devotion as priests coincidentally oversee a more and more liberal interpretation of the sacraments.
Let ‘em get married.
Whatever.
No one who loves commenting on such ideas cares enough to state logically, or any other way, how this would increase devotion to God, Jesus, the Eucharist, Reconciliation, nor the Church Dogma, which, BTW, people will claim to know all about while knowing nothing about the most rudimentary tenets of the Church such as, The fruits and gifts of the Holy Spirit, The true Presence, obligations of reconciliation, rules of fasting, the Mass, dressing properly at Mass, showing proper respect for priests, formation of children...
They’ll know everything there is to know about the marriage of priests, while spewing much falsehoods at the same time.
What do they care about this for?
It is weird.
We have a priest who is married with 5 kids and grandchildren.
Oh, and another married with children. They had a special dispensation and have restrictions. One, they’ll never marry again, two, they cannot rise to monsignor or above.
They happen to be very devout, as is Father Rutler, Archbishop Chaput and any number of Opus Dei priests who have never been and will never be married.
Who cares?
I think a number of priests likely would still remain celibate, as the burden of taking care of a flock and a family is quite daunting.
But I do think it would allow us to attract better quality men into the Priesthood.
And frankly, if we are allowing Eastern Rite, Orthodox and Anglican Priests to come aboard and bring their wives, we’re already on the slippery slope.
And Africa. There are married Catholic priests there. Very hard to get Africans to accept celibacy.
Exactly. Its the self control ad discipline that they hate. It bothers their consciences
They can imagine a priest being married and going through the same lack of discipline other husbands experience without realizing that among devout Catholics who practice their faith, that is, respect for their spouse, which entails among many other things strange to the western world, no birth control (birth control destroys marriage, in fact), no divorce, no selfishness, maturity and devotion.
That’s not what people call for when the screech about priests getting married. They are calling for corruption as the western world corrupts marriage and use bad marriage to corrupt
Here are the relevant facts regarding mandatory clerical celibacy:
1) There is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible requiring clerical celibacy as a prerequisite for service in the priesthood.
2) The early popes and the overwhelming majority of priests and bishops were married men until after the Middle Ages.
3) Mandatory clerical celibacy was put into place by the Church during around the period of the Reformation as a response to rampant corruption, primarily nepotism and simony.
“But I do think it would allow us to attract better quality men into the Priesthood.”
How?
And where does the Catholic Church state that celibacy in the priesthood is Biblically based?
No; it’s about vocation. A married man cannot give himself entirely to the priestly life — as Paul pointed out right at the start.
That’s a lot of ignorance to cram into such a short post.
He replied, “Madam, if I had a wife and family to care for, I could not possibly spend this much time talking to you.”
And where in the Bible does it state that priests are allowed to have a sense of humor?
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.