Posted on 10/08/2005 12:04:23 PM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- A lack of priests coupled with people's great need for spiritual nourishment must prompt the church to be open to considering a role for married priests in the life of the church, said some members of the Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist.
Coadjutor Bishop Arnold Orowae of Wabag, Papua New Guinea, told synod participants that Catholics who live in remote villages did not have "the opportunity for frequent celebration and reception of the Eucharist."
In his speech Oct. 6, he asked how these communities would then be able to make the Eucharist the source and summit of their lives as the church asks, according to information released by the Vatican.
He 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.
He said these men could "be easily trained to preside at the eucharistic celebration" which would then "make it easy for the people to participate in the Eucharist, so that the importance and centrality of the Eucharist" would "become true for the people."
Some synod fathers -- such as Italian Cardinal Angelo Scola of Venice and Bishop Lucio Muandula of Xai-Xai, Mozambique -- stressed in their talks Oct. 3 and Oct. 6, respectively, that the priest shortage would be better addressed with a more coordinated or just redistribution of celibate priests in the world.
Bishop Brian Noble of Shrewsbury, England, said "prayer for vocations and a sharing of priests among the churches are ways forward, but I suggest the need for a more urgent approach."
While the summary text of his Oct. 7 speech did not mention allowing married men to be priests, he did say "adequate provision" for the celebration of the Eucharist must be the church's priority.
While communities continue to wait for a priest, Bishop Noble proposed that the Vatican consult with the world's bishops to discuss "the extent of the problem" and seek "our views concerning how best to deal with the problem in those countries where the need is acute."
Meanwhile, Cardinal Nasrallah P. Sfeir, the Lebanon-based Maronite Catholic patriarch, said there were pros and cons to married men in the priesthood.
The Maronite church, an Eastern Catholic church, allows married priests, and he said half of their diocesan priests were married.
While admitting married men into the priesthood would solve some problems, it would "create other equally serious" problems, he said in his Oct. 7 talk.
A married priest has to provide for his wife and children and their education, he said. It also becomes difficult if not impossible for the bishop to transfer a priest and his whole family if tensions arise in the parish because the priest "does not have a good relationship with his parishioners."
However, Cardinal Sfeir did say "married priests have carried on the faith" and shared in the hard lives of their people. "Without them, this faith would no longer exist," he added.
Bishop Orowae questioned whether it was necessary for a priest who had to serve poor, often illiterate people in remote areas to have "years of intellectual formation in philosophy and theology."
He stressed ministers would have to have the proper and "necessary training required," but that they would be ordained for the task of only celebrating the Eucharist.
The church needs to clarify its position concerning the nature of the Eucharist, he said.
"Some feel that eucharistic hospitality is important," that "the Eucharist is food for the hungry, not a reward for being good."
He added that there was concern the Eucharist not be seen as "an elitist sacrament" but as "a celebration of the generosity of God."
"Others feel that the Eucharist be given only to those who are adequately prepared," he said. "How should the church explain these different opinions?"
Bishop Denis Browne of Hamilton, New Zealand, president of the Federation of Catholic Bishops' Conferences of Oceania, told the synod Oct. 7: "We, as church, need to be continually open to finding ways in which the Eucharist can become easily available to all our faithful people."
The bishop said Catholics living in small, isolated villages "have as much right to participate in the Eucharist" as those living in big cities.
Bishop Browne also told the synod members, "We need to be sensitive to the questions that the faithful often ask us," including the question: "Why does it seem to be possible for former priests of the Anglican Communion to be ordained and function as Catholic priests, while former Catholic priests who have been dispensed from their vow of celibacy are unable to function in any pastoral way?"
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?
And for what it's worth, you seem to be unable to distinguish between a calling to celibacy and pederasty.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As for Paul not being a pope you are correct; however, many popes have reaffirmed this ideal.
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.
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."
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.
Ignorant jerk? LOL. Once again. You're only half right.
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.
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.
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.
Paul wrote extensively about the virtue of celibacy, we need clergy with a true calling.
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.
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".
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
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.