Posted on 12/16/2006 1:07:45 PM PST by Zemo
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Should Catholic priests have the right to marry?
A Protestant friend who saw the video of Father Plushy giving his Barney blessing -- and truly, I don't know what is more irritating, the priest or the full house of ninnies who sat there singing and clapping -- writes this morning to say:
That video you just posted is the best single argument I have ever seen for ending the celibacy of the priesthood.
Well, maybe. One is entitled to wonder how seriously Father Plushy takes his vow of celibacy, or anything about the dignity and responsibilities of the priesthood. Still, even if priests were allowed to marry, why would that necessarily prevent future Father Plushies from entering the priesthood? On paper, it wouldn't, but if it made the priesthood open to men who would consider it if they could also fulfill vocations as husbands and fathers, it seems to me that you'd stand a greater chance of creating a more healthy manly culture within the ranks of clergy.
Priestly celibacy is not a dogmatic teaching, but rather a discipline of the Catholic Church. The Pope could not overturn the Church's teaching on (say) abortion, but he could theoretically change the celibacy discipline with a stroke of his pen. But should he?
Mandatory clerical celibacy is a discipline that was imposed on Catholic clergy in the Middle Ages. In the Orthodox churches, priests are still permitted to marry, as was the ancient practice. There are limitations on this -- you have to marry before your ordination, and the bishops are drawn from the monastic ranks, which means they must be celibates. But parish priests can and do have families. I've been going to an Orthodox church for a year or so now, though only in full communion for a few months, and I see that the two priests at my parish -- both of whom are married, and have children -- are really wonderful. I find it hard to understand why the Catholic Church insists on clerical celibacy.
Well, let me take that back: for many conservative Catholics, the celibacy requirement is seen as a valuable sign of contradiction to our oversexed age. That resonates with me. I think, though, that it's also the case that many orthodox Catholics resist thinking about ending the celibacy discipline because it's something that progressive Catholics have been pushing for, and to do so would appear to be a major concession to their agenda. But I tell you, after the Scandal revealed how the Catholic priesthood has become heavily gay, and at least some of the gays in the priesthood in positions of power were shown to be systematically using their power to discourage straight men considered a threat to them from continuing in the priesthood -- the "Goodbye, Good Men" thesis, and believe me, I have heard directly from seminarians and priests in the trenches how this works -- more than a few orthodox Catholics (including at least one deeply conservative priest) have said to me that it's time to consider ending mandatory celibacy. Before I even considered becoming Orthodox, I had spoken to Catholic friends about my own doubts on the wisdom of maintaining an exclusively celibate clergy (the distinction being that there will always be men and women called formally to the celibate state, and they must be honored and provided for, as they always have been in the Christian church.)
I think they're right. I mean, look, by year's end we will have seen ordained to the Catholic priesthood of two former Episcopal priests, Al Kimel and Dwight Longenecker, who converted to Catholicism. I have every expectation that they'll be wonderful, faithful, orthodox Catholic priests. And they are also married men. If they are to be welcomed and affirmed as Catholic priests, why not others? To be sure, these men are not campaigning for the end of the celibacy discipline, and as the Longenecker article I linked to in this sentence brings out, a married clergy poses special problems of its own.
Still, I think it's worth talking about, especially because to open up the Catholic priesthood to married men requires no change in the Church's doctrinal teaching. Would bringing married men into the priesthood cause a culture change within the priesthood that would discourage the Father Plushies from celebrating their diversity? I don't know. But I'd sure like to hear what orthodox Catholics and others have to say about it.
Since another person is involved, I don't think it makes sense to think of it as a right to marry.
http://www.catholic.com/library/was_peter_in_rome.asp
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num13.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/PeterRome.html
"It is observed by all Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (as far as I know)."
Right
Pope Defends Clergy Celibacy Order
Has the Time Come to Consider Making Celibacy Truly Optional In the Western Church?
Catholic Scandals: A Crisis for Celibacy?
Celibacy of the priesthood is a church strength, not a liability
Celibacy s history of power and money
Pope: Priests Must Stay Celibate
Giving Thanks for the Good Shepherds ( A Defense of Priestly Celibacy)
Don't end celibacy for priests
The celibate superhero
Priestly Celibacy And Its Roots In Christ
How to Refute Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy
Priestly Celibacy Reflects Who - and Whose - We Are[Father George W.Rutler]
Celibacy
Tracing the Glorious Origins of Celibacy
God’s call to celibacy for the sake of His Kingdom - by Card. George
Vatican Says Celibacy Rule Nonnegotiable
Bishop Attacks Move to End Celibacy
A response to Fr. Joseph Wilson's defense of mandatory celibacy
The gift of Priestly celibacy as a sign of the charity of Christ, by Mother Teresa of Calcutta
Archbishop Dolan:"We Need to Be Renewing Our Pledge to Celibacy, Not Questioning It"
Celibacy is gift cherished by church
Celibacy Will Save the Priesthood
Celibacy Defended by EWTN's Fr. Levis
Call To Action: Dump Celibacy
The (Catholic) Church Has Always Prospered When Celibacy Is Honored
John Paul II Hails "Inestimable Value" of Priestly Celibacy
For Priests, Celibacy Is Not the Problem
Fr. Shannon Collins Discusses Celibacy
5 Arguments Against (Catholic) Priestly Celibacy and How to Refute Them
Why A Married Priesthood Won't Remedy the Priest Shortage
New Vatican Document on Homosexuality and the Priesthood Coming Before Fall 2005
Catholic priests demand the right to marry
Catholic priests urge Church to reconsider celibacy rules
Alternative Priests´ Council Hits Back on Mandatory Celibacy
Married Priests? The English Experience
Saying Yes to God: a Look into Vocations
New Vatican Document to Eliminate 1961 Papal Ban on Ordaining Homosexuals
Saying Yes to God: a Look into Vocations
Is it time to ordain married men to the Catholic priesthood?
40% of Scots priests want end to celibacy
A small, sturdy band of 'John Paul priests'(JPII legacy of conservative priests)
Yes, Gay Men Should Be Ordained
Cardinal says Priests will marry
Fathers, Husbands and Rebels: Married Priests
An Unneeded Headache (Vatican document on [NOT] admitting homosexual to the priesthood)
Vatican Prepares Draft Directives Against Admitting Gays as Priests
From Anglican to married Catholic priest
Spain gets first married priest
Spain (R) Catholic Church ordains first married priest
The Catholic Church - East-West Difference Over Priestly Celibacy
ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF SCRANTON TO RECEIVE FIRST ECUSA PRIEST
Defending Chastity in the Priesthood
Ordination of married men is raised at Vatican synod
Patriarch of Venice deemphasizes ordination of married men to the priesthood
Cardinal Pell: Ending Celibacy Rule Would Be a Blunder
Priest shortage stems from crisis of faith, ignorance of the infinite, not celibacy, say Bishops [at Synod]
Synod Affirms Priestly Celibacy
Married Priests Aren’t the Answer (a seminarian states his view)
5 Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy and How to Refute Them
(Catholic) Church makes a clear distinction between chastity and celibacy, says Priest
Why Not Married Priests? The Case for Clerical Celibacy
Married, ex-Episcopalian ordained a Catholic priest in California
Getting It Right:The Foundation of Friendship (What can a celibate priest really teach us about love
Another One Takes the Plunge [swims the Tiber]
Following the Signs (to a priestly vocation)
Long Journey to Rome (Former Southern Baptist Pastor Now a Traveling Crusader for Catholic Church)
Ex-Lutheran bishop found Catholic rock: Joseph Jacobson to be ordained Catholic priest by Christmas
The Gift: A Married Priest Looks at Celiba[cy]
Vatican Reaffirms Celibacy for Priests
Pope, Curia Aides Reaffirm Value of Priestly Celibacy (detailed Vatican response)
Great Post!!!
I'm the last to support the Pope, but if you subjugate yourself to Catholicism and insist on becoming a priest, them this logically follows. One of the things Catholics do is believe the Pope has that power. If so, then it become "right".
However, I am a Protestant and do not believe the Pope has that kind of authority, nor do I believe that practice is right be Scripture.
There are no Biblical references of Peter being anywhere in or about Rome. Babylon in [1 Peter 5:13] means....Babylon. Peter, as well as the other twelve had received instructions to "Go to the Lost Sheep" of the house of Israel and stay away from the Gentiles [Matthew 10:5-6]. That's why Paul was selected....if you recall.
During the first century a very large Israelite population still inhabited the area of Ancient Babylon and Peter, being the Apostle to the circumcised, [Galatians 2:7-8] had no business in Rome....ever!
But it will be futile for you to debate this subject with the Romans......as they claim to have the authority to make things up as they go along.
Shouldn't have catholic priests to begin with and now we are to discuss whether they should marry or not? ROFL. Same goes for imams. What a sham all of it has become.
So to be correct, Latin Rite Catholic clergy are the only Catholic clergy forbidden to marry though this is in violation of the rulings of the Ecumenical Council on married clergy (though I forget which one).
>>You refer to the Quinisext Council, which Rome refused to ratify. It later accepted some of the canons from this council, although not all of them.
>>You should also remember that the Roman Catholic Church believes that the pope is above an Ecumenical Council, which places it at odds with Orthodoxy among other issues.
>>There were plenty of local councils of the Western Church that affirmed clerical celibacy. The Council of Elvira in Spain, for one.
I am always amazed when Protestants deny what was always known and believed and claim the Bible backs them up!
Diego1618 wrote:
"There are no Biblical references of Peter being anywhere in or about Rome. Babylon in [1 Peter 5:13] means....Babylon."
Incorrect.
1) Babylon also meant Rome. It was essentially a code word.
Even most Protestants openly admit that Babylon means Rome:
"It is generally agreed that "Babylon" in 1 Peter 5:13 is a cipher for the city of Rome. The great city in Mesopotamia was no longer such in the first century. Diodorus of Sicily (56-36 BCE) writes: "As for the palaces and the other buildings, time has either entirely effaced them or left them in ruins; and in fact of Babylon itself but a small part is inhabited at this time, and most of the area within its walls is given over to agriculture." (2.9.9) Strabo, who died in 19 CE, writes: "The greater part of Babylon is so deserted that one would not hesitate to say . . . 'The Great City is a great desert'." (Geography 16.1.5) Also, no church other than Rome was claimed in ancient times to be the resting place of Peter. The Sibylline Oracles (5.143-168; 5.434), the Apocalypse of Baruch (10:1-3; 11:1; 67:7), 4 Ezra (3:1, 28, 31), and Revelation (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2-21) also refer to Rome as "Babylon." There was a reason for connecting the Babylonian and Roman empires, as Norman Perrin writes, "Rome is called Babylon because her forces, like those of Babylon at an earlier time, destroyed the temple and Jerusalem" (Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom, p. 58)."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
You also wrote:
"Peter, as well as the other twelve had received instructions to "Go to the Lost Sheep" of the house of Israel and stay away from the Gentiles [Matthew 10:5-6]. That's why Paul was selected....if you recall."
2) And if you cracked open that Bible of yours you might recall Acts 10? Did St. Paul's designation as Apostle to the Gentiles stop him from preaching to Jews? Nope. He preached to Jews FIRST in each city he visited in fact.
Protestants used to know this! Martin Luther wrote: "Did not Paul preach to the Jews, while Peter preached to the Gentiles also? Peter converted the Centurion. Paul's custom was to enter into the synagogues of the Jews, there to preach the Gospel. Why then should he call himself the apostle of the Gentiles, while he calls Peter the apostle of the circumcision?"
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/gal2-04.html
No apologies required - discussion is cool.
I find it wrong headed - maybe too harsh a term - for Latins to view married clergy as say the ordination of women. Married clergy was traditional Latin orthodoxy once. So returning to the practice would not be a heresy as I recon it.
Freerepublic is just the reposting of media available elsewhere. I read much on the topic and I bet you even read my words on occasion without even knowing it.
I have noticed that a number of people in this thread repeatedly express something incorrectly. (You're NOT one of them!)
Here's an example: "So to be correct, Latin Rite Catholic clergy are the only Catholic clergy forbidden to marry though this is in violation of the rulings of the Ecumenical Council on married clergy (though I forget which one)."
NONE...I mean NONE of clergy in the historic churches (Catholic and Orthodox) marry AFTER ordination. Also, the Church does not forbid men to marry. They CHOOSE to vow not to marry and then are ordained. It is completely voluntary. You have the right to marry or be ordained in the Roman Church. You make a choice and take what comes with it. I wish people would just get a clue about this!
You wrote:
"I find it wrong headed - maybe too harsh a term - for Latins to view married clergy as say the ordination of women."
No, you're not too harsh. There's nothing wrong with idea of married clergy in itself. We have married priests already -- even in the Roman Church. There's nothing wrong with it. None of that changes the fact that celibacy is preferable for many reasons and a strong case can be made for it. Celibacy has in many ways been a blessing for the Roman Church -- especially in regard to mission work.
"Married clergy was traditional Latin orthodoxy once."
Yep.
"So returning to the practice would not be a heresy as I recon it."
Is someone claiming it would be a heresy? Did I miss that post?
You wrote:
"Based on what?"
His authority.
"From whence does the pope get that authority?"
God.
"I mean, can you imagine Saint Peter telling another apostle he couldn't marry?"
Absolutely -- if it was ever necessary.
Where did I imply clergy may marry after they are ordained? The above article is about the Orthodox position of marriage vs the Latin position (or as I like to call them the Frankish-Latin rite to mark the development of the Latin church after the Popes turned to the Franks for protection).
I cheer the expansion and blossoming of the Eastern Churches with all their gifts; I also cheer the expansion of the permanent diaconate in the West; there are about 16,000 Catholic permanent deacons in the USA and most of these are married men (deacons are, of course, clergy.)
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.