Posted on 10/03/2005 10:35:36 AM PDT by Stone Mountain
Top Cardinal Plays Down Priest Shortage
By NICOLE WINFIELD Associated Press Writer
October 03,2005 | VATICAN CITY -- A senior cardinal played down the shortage of clergymen that has left many churches without priests to celebrate Mass, saying at the start of a meeting of the world's bishops Monday that access to the Eucharist was a gift, not a right for Catholics.
But Cardinal Angelo Scola, the relator, or key moderator of the Synod of Bishops, hinted at some flexibility on another divisive issue facing the church: its ban on giving communion to divorcees who remarry without getting an annulment.
The comments by the Venice archbishop came in a lengthy introductory speech, delivered in Latin, to the bishops on the first day of the three-week meeting on the Eucharist, or Mass, during which Catholics receive what they believe is the body and blood of Christ.
His comments drew immediate, if nuanced, criticism from two bishops who appeared with Scola at a news conference -- a hint of the debates that will likely ensue behind closed doors during the synod.
Monsignor Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines said the synod had to "squarely" confront the priest shortage issue, recounting how on his first Sunday as an ordained priest he celebrated nine Masses -- and that that was the norm in his country.
"It is the priest who makes the Eucharist," he said.
He said he didn't have any answers to the problem, but many church reform groups have called on the synod to discuss the celibacy rule for priests, saying the priesthood would grow if men were allowed to marry.
Scola, however, repeated in his speech what the church regards as the benefits of a celibate priesthood and said the synod should talk about a better distribution of priests in the world.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Arthur Andersen did "financial engineering," too.
IIRC, their "engineering" had some flaws.
Your "research" has flaws big enough to drive M1A1's through.
Given that, there is also evidence to support the proposition that the Easterns found a way to ignore a decision-for-celibacy made at Nicea, c. 328.
Some say the message-runner suffered a fatal accident and his message was lost...
Obviously, Rome has decided to live with the Eastern situation as-is; that's fine.
I stand possibly corrected by the post citing Fr. Conchini (above.)
It may have been the Carthage Council's messenger, not Nicea's.
The great Council had absolutely forbidden bishops, priests, and deacons—in other words, all the members of the clergy—to have with them a sister-companion with the exception of a mother, a sister, an aunt, or, lastly, only those persons who are beyond any suspicion.I will note the absence of the mention of wife.
Geez, I wish you hadn't printed that.
It's ALSO noticeable that there's no mention of a boyfriend.
No thinking necessary -it will stay in place! It can not be changed one iota...
Suggesting history relevant does not make history any less morally relative...
The Church decides -you submit... At this time the discipline is as it is -end of story...
You might find this from the Vatican website interesting and informative: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_ortodox_en.html
My beef is not with the Orthodox but those in the West who, ignorant of the historical evidence, posit a late medieval invention for the practice and also allege that it was introduced for purely worldly reasons.
Every priest I know would most likely feel sorry for the poor married fellow. : )
Bravo! You got me cheering with those high notes!
"I also understand that the Orthodox believe that they are following the original Apostolic tradition." The evidence in the East is at best inconclusive either way."
As do those Eastern Rite Churches which are in communion with Rome.
"The evidence in the East is at best inconclusive either way."
I think I'm safe in saying that we and they probably have a fairly good handle on our own history.
"My beef is not with the Orthodox but those in the West who, ignorant of the historical evidence, posit a late medieval invention for the practice and also allege that it was introduced for purely worldly reasons."
I didn't think your beef was with Orthodoxy. I just thought it interesting that the Vatican posted this essay on clerical celibacy by Met. Demaskinos on its website, I assume because it presents a fairly balanced view of the history of the discipline in The Church.
Ah, but I claim it just as much as a part of our own history.
In any case, this is just a matter of discipline and the truth of the faith does not stand or fall upon it. But I would point out the illogic of claiming that this is the cause of the priest shortage. This has been the practice in the West for 2000 years, many of which were rich in vocations. The problem must be found in something more recent.
FWIW, I would eagerly attend a Divine Liturgy of one of the Eastern Catholic Churches prayed by a married priest.
That's a rather brainless remark.
Not all are called to marriage just as not all are called to celibacy. The doctrine of the Mystical Body tells us that to each is given the charism particular to their place within the Church.
Some are called to serve God as parents in the married state, some are called to embrace Jesus as the Divine Spouse in the state of virginity and celibacy. Each forms a part of the Divine plan.
My own state in life is entirely irrelevant to the issue.
The only one famous enough to be displayed in any museum's collection is a portrait of Pope Leo X with his nephew and a cousin through marrigae, both of whom were cardinals.
Leo X had neither children nor grandchild.
At this point I suspect you are either incredibly stupid, or a troll, or both.
Father Cantelamessa (sp?), the former Popes preacher, has homilized time and again about how celibacy is a GIFT, not a sacrifice. If this be the case, then I should see no reason why a celibate priest would be "peeved" with the consecration of married men to the priesthood. There are many married priests in the Eastern Rite Catholic Church. They don't have this "supposed" animosity between the groups because celibacy has been optional from the beginning. As a married clergy, I often times find it amusing the arguments that are so prevalent in the West when speaking of celibacy, as if supporting married clergy was a liberal hinge-pin towards modernization. One might as well accuse St. Paul of modern liberalism. Married clergy have been in the Church since its beginnings. With all the scandals that have plagued the Latin Rite Church for the last thousand years, one would have to go a long way in assuming married clergy would hurt the church. Simple fact is...there have been, are, and will be married clergy.
PS: As a married clergyman, I am often insulted at the responses good solid Catholics give when they get their hair all up over optional celibacy. But then again, to be Catholic is to be persecuted one way or the other. :^)
There is no question that the idea of mandatory celibacy is early in the West but it is not Apostolic. In the East
there has never been such a requirement so the idea that the whole Church everywhere endorsed mandatory celibacy for clergy from its earliest days is simply not true.
The suggestion that some who argue that the sacrament of marriage is a possibility for Priests are doing so from "worldly" perspectives is just that, an empty charge.
Marriage is a holy estate, ordained by God in creation, and blessed by Jesus. People who desire to marry are not second class citizens in the Kingdom of God.
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.