Some bishops say church must reconsider role for married priests

Catholic News Service ^ | October 7, 2005 | Carol Glatz

[bigsigh]

Feel free to teach him yourself. You seem to have a pipeline to God and know what the church has always done. So let's hear it.

I like those who would save the church by prohibiting a return to original practice and calling it secular humanism.

You folks who come on these catholic threads and know everything are a scary bunch, but when the facts are known you're really just some group wailing and gnashing your teeth over nothing.

Married priests will not destrtoy the priesthood any more than celibacy did. See how well that truned out?

[wagglebee]

I'm not saying that married priests would necessarily destroy the Church. I am saying that giving in to the demands of the left will.

And for what it's worth, you seem to be unable to distinguish between a calling to celibacy and pederasty.

[bigsigh]

And how did you arive at that conclusion and what does pederasty have to do with priest marrying? Your reaction is symptomatic of a losing argument which just keeps squirming looking for an escape.

Your logic is the problem. If you are on a crusade to save us from the left, then you must think every idea espoused by the left is wrong. Your extreme position does not allow for thinking. It's a knee jerk based upon the source and not the idea.

Lastly, much of what "conservative catholics" oppose in todays' liturgy and church practice was part of the original church practice. So take the easy way out or think, your choice.

[wagglebee]

You are obviously unable to differentiate between celibacy and pederasty. Your anger at the Church is obvious and you seem to have subscribed to the idea that the Vatican's unwillingness to adopt moral relativism is somehow an "extreme" position.

[bigsigh]

Obviously, you haven't read a word I've said. I have not addressed the subject you mention, yet you keep throwing it out there so you'll have a target you can hit.

As far as my anger at the church, you must ability that your mind reading prowess is not 100% accurate. I'm not angry at the church. I'm angry at the ignorant rhetoric one finds on this thread and the lame attempt to counter, when the ignorance is pointed out.

If your going to continue ignoring what I say and making up my position, then argue both sides and make up the replies.

[wagglebee]

From post #21:
Married priests will not destrtoy the priesthood any more than celibacy did. See how well that truned (sic) out?

I took that to be a reference to the homosexual abuse scandals, if I was wrong I apologize.

Paul repeatedly wrote of the ideal of celibacy, there is every reason to look for this ideal in our clergy. What's next after married priests? Will homosexuals in "civil unions" be agreeable? Where do we stop the descent?

If someone wants to be married and enter the clergy, there are plenty of denominations that would be happy to accept him.

[bigsigh]

There were married priests before and in case you're ill-informed there are married priests now, let into the church by the last pope. See how that's destroying everything we stand for?

I said nothing about homosexuals or child molesting. This is where you get on a track and run over everything in your path. All comments and issues are not left-wing conspiracies running us into the bowels of hell. Concrete thinkers on church policy go into a fit whenever a change is made or someone picks up a guitar in church.

Paul certainly was entitled to speak or write on celebacy. As are you. But so what, which pope was he? I forget.

[wagglebee]

In recent history, the married priests have primarily been converts from Protestant denominations who were already married when they entered the priesthood. Certain other married men have been ordained, but have also taken vows of celibacy.

As for Paul not being a pope you are correct; however, many popes have reaffirmed this ideal.

[x5452]

Even just allowing married men into the priesthood while assuming celibacy would greatly increase the ranks of priests, while being in keeping with ancient tradition, and Catholism as a whole.

[bigsigh]

Your first paragraph is needless pap, since it's been obvious from the start I know more about church history than you. Why you have the need to focus on recent history and tell me where the modern married priests came from can only mean you're trying to salvage your ridiculous earlier comments by now posing as a historian.

Your last sentence can only be responded to by saying so what? It doesn't refute or negate my earlier comments about church history or your relying on Paul to make an arugment against centuries of church practice which were contrary to Paul's "opinion."

[Conservative til I die]

Celibacy is not what is being debated at the Synod, what is is whether married men can be accepted into th priesthood.

It is a dangerous game to overturn 1,500 or so years of Tradition for what is a temporary problem. There's a whole lot of baggage that comes with allowing married men into the priesthood in the Latin Rite.

[wagglebee]

Your first paragraph is needless pap, since it's been obvious from the start I know more about church history than you.

Actually, the only thing obvious to me is that you are an ignorant jerk. So, go on believing whatever you want, I'm done debating with an ignorant fool.

[bigsigh]

Ignorant jerk? LOL. Once again. You're only half right.

[NYer]

Even just allowing married men into the priesthood while assuming celibacy would greatly increase the ranks of priests, while being in keeping with ancient tradition, and Catholism as a whole.

According to Webster's Dictionary , "celibacy" is the state being unmarried; the state of no sexual relations. Given that definition, could you please explain your statement to me.

[wagglebee]

The mainstream traditional Protestant denominations have all followed a similar path:

1. Allowing clergy to marry.
2. Allowing women into the clergy.
3. Allowing homosexuals into the clergy.

In the course of this, they have also abandoned the Sacraments and tradition, choosing instead to erroneously interpret the Bible for themselves. And today, they are at a loss to explain their dwindling membership and widespread division among the remaining members.

When I look back on the history of what happens to those who abandon the Church that Christ established, it baffles me that some want to see the Vatican take us down the same path of destruction.

[NYer]

Bishop Arnold Orowae of Wabag, Papua New Guinea - said the church needs to reflect on "what kind of priest" they need in their situation, and he asked the church to consider allowing the ordination of "mature Christian men who are strong in faith, very committed, and have the respect of the people." Often times these so-called "viri probati," or "men of proven virtue," are older, married men.

Wagglebee - This is unfortunately true, but the solution is not to increase the frequency by rendering the entire Sacrement meaningless by destroying the priesthood.

bigsigh - Destroying the priesthood. LOL! You need a serious lesson in church history.

* * * * *

Let's clear the air and take a fresh look at wagglebee's statement. He is pointing to a comment made by Bishop Orowae who suggests the Catholic Church allow for 'older married men' to become priests. You claim he is unfamiliar with church history but give no additional information. This topic surfaces at each and every synod. It is discussed, and at the end of the synod, it dies like a grape on the vine.

If you are to accuse another person of a poor understanding of 'church history', then please provide documented resources to substantiate your claim.

[wagglebee]

Paul wrote extensively about the virtue of celibacy, we need clergy with a true calling.

[bigsigh]

If you followed the thread you'd know that both he and I know that the church allowed married priests and has married priests now. Your attempt to support him by attacking me is weak and indicates a lack of understanding of the entire exchange between the two of us. I don't know why you would do such a thing, but it says a lot about your character. The next time you want to support some ignorant reactionary, get the story straight first or at least read the thread.

[NYer]

When I look back on the history of what happens to those who abandon the Church that Christ established, it baffles me that some want to see the Vatican take us down the same path of destruction.

Throughout its history, the Church has encountered dissidents who believe they have the solutions to all that is "wrong" with the Catholic Church. There have even been heterodox popes ... but ... no matter how far astray they tried to lead the Church, they never erred with regard to doctrine. Christ promised to remain with His church until the end of time. As others separate, pull away and stray, the Catholic Church continues along the path layed out by our Lord, Jesus Christ.

As JPII told us on the day he was elected pope, "Be not afraid!". Draw your strength from the promise Christ made to His church ... "I am with you all days, even until the end of time".

[sanormal]

My view is that the Roman Bishops will never admit married men to the priesthood on any large scale for two reasons:
1. risk of having to pay alimony
2. risk of having to pay child support