Fathers, Husbands and Rebels: Married Priests

LA times ^ | July 8, 2005 | Elizabeth Mehren

[gamarob1]

Fathers, Husbands and Rebels: Acting outside the Catholic Church, many married priests are attracting a following.

BOSTON — The priests came from three states, converging on a suburban park one Sunday to conduct an outdoor Mass. Wearing white vestments with rainbow-hued stoles, they led the worshippers in prayer and song. They stuck closely to traditional Roman Catholic liturgy.

But as they raised their arms in blessing, the five men revealed unmistakable proof of defiance: All wore wedding bands.

These men, who still consider themselves Roman Catholic priests, have wives, children — and unflinching commitments to their 2,000-year-old faith. As married priests, they say, they are not heretical anomalies but, instead, are following a model set by priests and popes in the earliest days of their church. They are part of a growing national network of thousands of deeply religious men who believe marriage does not compromise their ability to serve as spiritual ministers.

[kosta50]

God is not working through this effort by these schismatic, vow-breaking heretics...I AM a member of the Knights of Columbus. I am disgusted by these false "priests

AlaninSA, your own Church says they are real priests, and does not call them heretics (not any more at least).

I AM a PROUD, PRACTICING Roman Catholic

Now, that I believe. Oh, by the way, Hermann -- remember I was going to ping you when I run into one of those Roman Catholics who dislike Orthodox ... because you said you didn't know any such Catholics ... well, here is one, so you can get to know him. Just for the record.

[Agrarian]

There have been those on this thread who say that we shouldn't use the term Roman Catholic, saying that it is a term of derision. I was merely pointing out that this is poppycock, just like I repeatedly have pointed out that the term "Uniate" is a label the Latins came up with, not the Orthodox. I think that people are just too sensitive about all of this stuff, and on un-PC FR of all places!

[Siobhan]

Eastern Catholics have their own Eparchies. The Dioceses are part of the Latin Church. Latin Church Dioceses will usually use the expression "Roman Catholic" as it is what is popularly understood. "Roman Catholic" was originally a term of derision used by Anglicans who wanted to claim that they were English National Catholics. It is frequently the case in human history that a term of derision is taken up and worn with pride.

Siobhan

[Siobhan]

My reading of the post is that AlaninSA is speaking of the article (Can one imagine that!) and is taking to task the laicised priests who are forbidden to function as priests but who continue to do so within a group that also embraces the marriage of homosexuals and female ordination.

I do not think you would lump Eastern Orthodoxy in with that group, nor do I think AlaninSA was addressing the Eastern Orthodox priesthood.

I admit I could be naive, but that would be a great surprise to one and all.

Siobhan

[sitetest]

Dear Agrarian,

The overwhelming number of underage victims in the recent scandals in the Catholic Church have been males. If I recall correctly, about 90% of the victims were males.

It has primarily been a problem of permitting homosexuals into the priesthood, as homosexuals appear to offend at a rate significantly higher than heterosexuals (in the general population, even though homosexuals make up perhaps 1 - 3% of the population, they commit approximately 1/3 of sexual offenses against minors under the age of consent).

However, it is correct to say that most of the offenses have not been against pre-pubescent children, but rather against boys on the verge, or well into puberty. Apparently, this may be part and parcel of the "gay culture," which encourages "chicken-hawking"; the sexual use of boys-on-the-verge-of-manhood.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Siobhan,

"My reading of the post is that AlaninSA is speaking of the article (Can one imagine that!) and is taking to task the laicised priests who are forbidden to function as priests but who continue to do so within a group that also embraces the marriage of homosexuals and female ordination."

That was my reading, too.


sitetest

[Siobhan]

Weren't you Episcopalian?

Siobhan

[kosta50]

Agrarian, the word pederasty always referred to the same-sex relationships between grown men and adolescent boys (in ancient Greece), and is often confused with pedophilia which is child molestation of either gender.

Pederasty is therefore always a special form of homosexual behavior, which is not true of pedophilia. It is satanic in either case, but that much more pronounced when it infects the Church.

Pederastry was common in all pagan countries, and still persists in very conservative Islamic societies. In Afghanistan and in Pakistan, for instance, there are teenage male "sex workers" or haliqs, and bachas in Uszbeki areas.

[kosta50]

Sorry. It's just the "schismatic" being associated with "married" clergy that seems to be lumping all into one and the same basket with "other" schismatic and married clergy. Since they are no longer Roman Catholic priests, they cannot be "schismatic." And if they were ex-communicated, as they should have been, then they are not "schismatic" either.

[Graves]

Kosta,
If we limit ourselves to only pedophilia and pederasty, we limit the scope of the problem. There's much more to this. What of heterosexuals who were just not able to control themsleves, men who went into the priesthood with pure hearts and who just were not able to live by their vows, men who did as Archbishop Cranmer did before the death of King Henry VIII? It is said that he married secretly and kept his wife in a box as he travelled about the archdiocese. My wife has told me of her parish priest (in her youth), who had a "housekeeper" and that it was well known that this housekeeper was more than just that. There are many such tales.
I do not condemn these men. I say that all of this stuff has resulted from a system that is not based on reality. And I wonder. A lot is coming out into the open now. How much went on from the 9th century to the present that we will not learn of until the dread Day of Judgement when all must give account?
I am reminded of the words of the first Pope of Rome to the Council of Jerusalem: Act 15:10 "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"

[Siobhan]

As they continue to foment schism within the Latin Church while remaining within the Latin Church, they are assuredly schismatics. Even if laicised or forbidden to exercise their faculties as priest in the Latin Church, they remain priests nonetheless because ordination to the sacred priesthood is irrevocable. "Thou art a priest forever according to the Order of Melchizedek."

Siobhan

[gamarob1]

I've been around here since May, but I suppose that is still a short time. Thank you for the welcome :)

[TradicalRC]

Paul was a Pharisee. That means he was of the highest order of Jewish Rabbis. I do believe that means that he must have been married at some point, and that he was a widower.

What evidence do you have that any of the other Apostles (and specifically Peter) were celibate? (Begin Jeopardy music).

While you are at it, what evidence do you have that the office of "Priest" or Pope was established in the first century? (Begin Double Jeopardy music).

Ah evidence. You have the same evidence as I do. You choose to believe what you want anyway. My post was pointing out that both Christ and Paul defended celibacy, do you need me to quote chapter and verse for you? The only reason I can think of for attacking it is because it is too "Catholic" for some tastes.

The papacy was established by Christ with Peter, the chief apostle and first Pope. Again, I'm sure you're familiar with Scripture but your protestant sensibilities won't allow you to acknowledge the meaning that was obvious to all Christendom until Martin Luther came along and straightened things right out.

I find it highly interesting that you want me to offer proof for things that are blatantly evident in Scripture and then you turn around and indulge in speculation about Paul's marital status for which there is zero evidence in Scripture. You believe what you want to believe. Modern liberal Americans have a huge problem with anything that smacks of religious modesty or chastity. It has to be some form of oppression.

[steve8714]

shortage is local to the developed world. Africa has full seminaries and orthodox Bishops.

[TradicalRC]

Just because Paul preferred to be unmarried, doesn't mean that God doesn't EQUALLY use the married.

Please show me the Scripture that states God EQUALLY uses married folks.

[marajade]

It maybe preferred but not commanded. Man has commanded that the priesthood be celibate, not JC.

[TradicalRC]

I'm not a Protestant, no matter how many labels you like to put on people. I'm a Christian, just like they were in the early church of Acts.

Uh-oh. Another protestant that has trouble confronting history. That's okay, the socialists are ahistorical too. I think Reagan said something profound about their relationship to history.

[TradicalRC]

And btw, for most mainstream Catholics, the "Protestant exception" does not make us doubt the "celibacy requirement".

Yes, I am aware that most Catholics are very comfortable with contradiction.

Give me a break. I'm not sure what world of Platonic purity you live in but in Holy Mother Church we are flexible with regard to some disciplines. We do have to reach out to the lost sheep and help them find their way back into the flock. Your kvetching about "contradictions" is the equivalent of saying there is no such thing as freedom of speech because you can't yell "Fire!" in a movie theater.

[TradicalRC]

For it would be presumptious and proud to assert that those who, simnply because they have given up sex, are less sinful then the rest of us and more fit to serve as priests.

Okay, but then why DOES Paul say this?

38 Therefore both he that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well: and he that giveth her not doth better. -1 Corinthians 7

[kosta50]

...ordination to the sacred priesthood is irrevocable. "Thou art a priest forever according to the Order of "

Thank you for the explanation. Seems rather strange, given that those who side with Satan would no longer possess sanctity of their calling, but be it as it may. Why not just excommunicate him? That's what the Church used to do. Surely, heretics cannot be valid priests.

But I will look up the Melchizedek Order to hopefully gain more understanding of this.