Posted on 04/07/2005 5:00:46 AM PDT by Teófilo
I would be in favour of it with a proviso - this allowance of married men into the Church, should be accompanied by crushing the "gay mafia" in many seminaries.
Regards, Ivan
Another proviso - I do believe that the upper echelons of the Church should be comprised of celibate men: it would be very peculiar to have a "First Lady" for the Pope.
Regards, Ivan
In other words, it could be said that the obligation of continence (or of celibacy) became canon law only in the fourth century but that, before that, from apostolic times, the ideal of living in continence (or in celibacy) was already held up to the ministers of the Church, and that this ideal was indeed deeply felt and lived as a requirement by quite a number (Tertullian and Origen, for instance) but was not yet imposed on all clerics in major orders. It was a vital principle, a seed, clearly present from apostolic times but which gradually then developed until the ecclesiastical legislation of the fourth century.
There is much more in the article about continence. I just picked out one of the references.
You may as well grow to tolerate it, at least, because lay-run parishes is what we're going to have over the next ten years. The number of men being ordained is simply insufficient to replace those who die, leave, or retire.
The hierarchy has dithered over this issue for 20 years, with Rome shutting off all discussion of any solution.
It's wonderful to pray for vocations, and we should be doing more of it. But God can't force men into the priesthood, and celibate men are not responding, for whatever reasons.
So we are left with an older and older priesthood, with priests having to do more and more.
My pastor has one lung due to lung cancer, and he may not make the five year maximum for lung cancer survivors. He celebrates three Masses every Sunday, and does at least one wedding every single weekend, somewhere. The poor guy has to go to bed at 8:00 every night because he's exhausted.
The men who are priests TODAY have to be given some kind of relief, if only so that they can live a little longer.
The reason marriage was eventually ruled out for priests is because continence between married people was a pipe dream. It didn't work then, and it certainly wouldn't work now.
Well, that it's a bit disingenous for "reformers" to cite the early practice of the Church as an argument in favor of their wishes, isn't it?
This Catholic not only says "No," but "Heck No."
A Priest is married to the Church. It would not be fair to the wife or to the Church if he is forced to serve both.
Of course there's not. And there are not an insignificant number of celibate homosexuals in the priesthood today; there always has been.
Rockford, IL, Atlanta, GA, Lincoln, NE, Denver, CO, Omaha, NE, Arlington, VA...
I could name many others. I wonder what they are doing differently there?
Oops! Even you know, don't you? Just don't want to go there, huh?
"You may as well grow to tolerate it, at least, because lay-run parishes is what we're going to have over the next ten years."
Check out NY and Boston. You will not have more "lay-run" parishes. You will have more consolidated and CLOSED parishes. You still don't get it, do you? The days of the "parish administrator" are running out. This is no longer a viable model. It is ending. It is no longer the 1970s or '80s, thanks be to God.
Get with the times.
"Like you, I don't think admitting married men to the priesthood is THE solution, but it is part of A solution."
For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Church does indeed revisit this issue if the next Pope is so disposed.
What are the odds of getting a Pope who would consider this? Have you kept any sort of tally of which Cardinal-electors would be in favour of ordaining married men to the priesthood?
I know of only two - Cormac Murphy O'Connor and Keith O'Brien - neither of whom stand a cat in hell's chance of being elected. Do you know of any others, especially from among the papabile?
In fact, the lack of observance of "continence" by married priests demonstrates that the early Church was either naive or just duplicitous about this practice. It appears that the Church had a policy, knew it was being ignored, and just looked the other way for 1100 years, occasionally reminding clerics that continence was still a requirement.
It was not until Gregory VII actually took the woman away that celibacy began to be observed.
Cardinal Law was the point man on this.
Was he an adult at the time? I am always amazed when I read stories of older teenagers or even seminarians being raped. When I was 15 (very immature and very small physically) I jumped out of a car when the driver, a man I babysat for and a high powered lawyer, made advances towards me - he had been suggestive the whole trip (taking me to his summer cottage to babysit his kids) and he finally pulled over and got explicit. I got over it and really hadn't thought about it much over the years until the 'scandal' broke and I read about all the young teenaged boys and some young adults being raped... I just don't see how that can happen?
Only McCormac and O'Brien have said what they think about admitting married men to the priesthood. You can certainly guess that a majority of the American cardinals favor it (though they would never say so), and "pragmatists" like Tettamanzi and Scola might also be open to the idea.
The stark reality is staring them in the face.
Question- a fellow Catholic told me that JPII approved altar girls but never sanctioned women being Eucharistic Ministers. Do you know if this is true? Every Catholic mass I've been to for years has women serving.
So say we get two married priests in a parish to replace the busy celibate one priest. Will they have more time to minister to their parishioners considering they also have family obligations and presumably they will have many children.
What I don't get is how on the one hand Catholics are supposed to be dirt cheap but on the other hand it is a given that the laity will contribute enough $$$ to pay a salary which will support a couple of families.
And the dwindling number of priests... I thought we had a dwindling amount of parishioners as well?
We supposedly have a priest shortage in Boston but the bishop won't allow the FSSP to come in and take over even one closing parish (which happens to be the Indult one).
Seduced is probably a better term, than what we think of as rape, physically forcing someone. Given that a priest, (an many other adults like a teacher) has many psychological advantages over a teen such as his authority, respectability, and is in a position of trust I think it can still be considered a rape just due to the the victim's age. There are other methods of "force" besides physical force.
I am glad that you escaped. I imagine stories like yours happen far more frequently than we will ever know.
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.