Should Catholic priests have the right to marry?

beliefnet.com/blogs/crunchycon ^ | Wednesday, December 06, 2006 | Rod Dreher

[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.

[Zemo]

Not to go to another subject but the Orthodox Church has re-introduced female deaconesses again - under very strict conditions per what is allowed by the rulings of the Ecumenical Council - again I forget which one authorized female deacons. Maybe Kolokotronis can fill us in on both details.

[Diego1618]

I am always amazed when Protestants deny what was always known and believed and claim the Bible backs them up!

Well, how about when Non-Protestants deny it....because I don't recall ever claiming to be one.

The great city in Mesopotamia was no longer such in the first century.

True...it may not have been, but the area "Beyond the Euphrates" was referred to by Josephus in the first century as containing the remnant of the ten tribes of Israel and their numbers were not to be estimated.

[Josephus "Antiquities" Book XI, Chapter V, Paragraph 2] "When Esdras had received this epistle, he was very joyful, and began to worship God, and confessed that he had been the cause of the king's great favor to him, and that for the same reason he gave all the thanks to God. So he read the epistle at Babylon to those Jews that were there; but he kept the epistle itself, and sent a copy of it to all those of his own nation that were in Media. And when these Jews had understood what piety the king had towards God, and what kindness he had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased; nay, many of them took their effects with them, and came to Babylon, as very desirous of going down to Jerusalem; but then the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers."

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.

Yup.....the reason for that is this: [Acts 9:15] But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel." Paul was told he could speak with both Israelite and Gentile.....Peter received no such commission.

Your turn. Give us that proof that does not exist....except in the false doctrines of your organization.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "Where did I imply clergy may marry after they are ordained?"

Did you write this: "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)." If you did, then haven't you answered your own question?

"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)."

Wow, just get done reading Romanides huh? How about calling it what it is? It is the Roman Church. Why not call it the Roman Church? Do you want us to start referring to the Greek Orthodox Church as "Muslim-Greek rite" church? After all, didn't some Greek Orthodox embrace iconclasm after the rise of iconoclastic Islam? Would that be fair? No, not really. Leo the Isaurian may have made his choices in part because of Islam, but Islam didn't change church teaching. The Franks didn't change church teaching either.

[Zemo]

The iconoclasts were not Orthodox and were defeated. The Orthodox celebrate their defeat on a designated feast day.

By the way - the Orthodox Church also considers itself to be Roman. 'Orthodoxy and Romiosini'.

The Franks did change church teaching - see Filioque.

[sitetest]

Dear ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY,

"I realize that there are some pseudo-christians that think all you have to do to be saved is confess the name of Christ, but if you're saying that summarizes most non-Roman Catholic denominations, you are very wrong."

Nope. That's not what I said.


sitetest

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

"Well, how about when Non-Protestants deny it....because I don't recall ever claiming to be one."

You didn't have to claim it.

"True...it may not have been, but the area "Beyond the Euphrates" was referred to by Josephus in the first century as containing the remnant of the ten tribes of Israel and their numbers were not to be estimated."

Babylon was still a term used to refer to ancient, pagan Rome.

"Yup.....the reason for that is this: [Acts 9:15] But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel." Paul was told he could speak with both Israelite and Gentile.....Peter received no such commission."

So you are claiming St. Peter was acting beyond his mandate? ROFLOL!!! Peter could preach to whomever would listen. Again, you forget Acts 10.

"Your turn. Give us that proof that does not exist....except in the false doctrines of your organization."

I already proved that Babylon was a common code word for Rome. I already proved that this is recogized by Protestants like yourself (even perhaps those who didn't have enough courage or intelligence to admit they were Protestant). And my Church has no false doctrines, nor have you presented any evidence to the contrary.

Oh, and you're still a Protestant.

[carolinalivin]

If celibacy is the most precious gem in the church, we are doomed. I guess the trappings are now more important than the substance of the faith.

[Zemo]

A good book on the origins of the Frankish-Latin Church we now call Roman Catholic:

The Reform of the Frankish Church: Chrodegang of Metz and the Regula canonicorum in the Eighth Century

Sometimes, the chosen past turned out to be less than usable. An illustrative example of this is the sacramentary that Charlemagne requested and received from Pope Hadrian at the end of the eighth century. This text, the so-called Gregorian sacramentary, although certainly hailing from Rome, did not fulfill the liturgical needs of the Franks, nor meet their expectations of what a Roman liturgical book should be. Benedict of Aniane, one of Charlemagne’s monastic advisors and perhaps the court’s liturgical expert, revised the sacramentary, adding, modifying, and deleting material to produce a book that could be promulgated throughout the empire. In other words, Benedict took a preexisting tradition – in this case, a Roman text – and changed it to produce a new text and a new kind of tradition.6 At other times, a usable past simply did not exist. Occasionally, there was insufficient historical information available to reformers, so that they were forced to turn to their own devices, but, more often, men and women in the early Middle Ages could face problems and situations for which the past did not supply appropriate analogues. To deal with this sort of situation, a past had to be created, a history invented, a tradition assembled. This effort could not be undertaken lightly: it demanded all the scholarly resources, intellectual verve, and spiritual discretion that a reformer might possess. The act of creation itself would often involve a sort of cobbling together of bits of the past gathered here and there, a bundling of whatever information and knowledge might be available, and a fitting of this newly made historical bricolage into a framework that the writers of the original sources might not have recognized.

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

"Nope. That's not what I said."

OK, I give up. I don't know of any Christian denomination that teaches "Once Saved, Always Saved" or whatever you were implying.

[DogwoodSouth]

First of all, to answer the original thread title/question "Should Catholic priests have the right to marry?," the obvious answer is "no." A priest who has been ordained has voluntarily surrendered the option of marriage, "for the benefit of the kingdom."

Now, as for the spirit of the question, which may be better worded to read: "should the Catholic Church begin to allow more married men to seek ordination?," this "conservative" Catholic believes the answer is yes. At the present moment, however, according to Rome, the question is closed. As a loyal Catholic, I willingly concede to the judgment of our Holy Father on this and every other question of faith and morals. I do believe that in the near future the Roman church may revisit the subject and may begin by loosening the requirements for the granting of a papal dispensation from the normal celibacy requirements for ordination to the presbytery (in other words, adult men who convert to the Church from other Christian faith traditions where married men are ordained may become just as eligible as Anglican and Lutheran pastors for ordination). After that, I could see the Church then lifting the celibacy requirement for the so-called "vir probati," older, married men who have raised their families and are well-grounded in the faith.

Of course this is all just speculation on my part. I simply recognize that: a) there is nothing wrong (in any way: moral, traditional, Scriptural or other) with married priests. The Church also recognizes as much. b) in some areas of the world, there will be priest shortages in the near future which will be severe enough to warrant immediate attention from ecclesiastical authorities.

I also agree with the observation that many conservative Catholics are hesitant to indicate their willingness to support a widespread lifting of the celibacy requirement within the Roman Rite because they are afraid such a move would be viewed as a concession to "liberal" demands. I think the observation is probably very accurate.

[Diego1618]

Oh, and you're still a Protestant.

You know....I can deal with quite a lot from you folks as it is very easy to prove you wrong.....all the time. But if you wish to call me a liar....then I guess we really won't be able to continue.

[Pyro7480]

And what was/were the Pope(s) response?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

"The iconoclasts were not Orthodox and were defeated."

Irrelevant. They were baptized Orthodox Christians who held responsible and important positions in the Orthodox Church when they developed their heresy. Nothing I said goes contray to that and you can't change those facts either.

"The Orthodox celebrate their defeat on a designated feast day."

Yes, I know. Been there, done that.

"By the way - the Orthodox Church also considers itself to be Roman. 'Orthodoxy and Romiosini'."

It can consider itself Martian. The Turks think the EC is Roman after all!!! Is it Roman? No. It's not even really Constantinople anymore either.

"The Franks did change church teaching - see Filioque."

Uh, you do realize that 1) filioque didn't start with the Franks right? I mean, you did know that it was discussed in Toledo in 447 didn't you? You do realize that the Franks were not EVEN BAPTIZED CHRISTIANS AT THAT POINT RIGHT? 2) it isn't a change in doctrine (even some EOs admit this).

A change in doctrine would be like when some EOs renounced the Assumption of Mary for no other reason than the fact that the Catholic Church defined it as doctrine in 1950!!! How disgusting! That's the sort of lunacy that follows in the wake of anti-Catholic hatred.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "You know....I can deal with quite a lot from you folks as it is very easy to prove you wrong.....all the time."

And yet you never do it. You just make claims, and then run away when you know you can't do the job.

"But if you wish to call me a liar....then I guess we really won't be able to continue."

See what I mean? Run, Diego, run!!!

[Zemo]

Irrelevant. They were baptized Orthodox Christians

So were the Catholic Germans who sided with Father Martin Luther.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "A good book on the origins of the Frankish-Latin Church we now call Roman Catholic:"

Nonsense. The book claims NOTHING like what you want it to. According to your logic the following quote would have to prove that the Franks also created a Frankish-Greek Church or what we now call Eastern Orthodox: "And the same is true for his liturgical innovations: where Metz was poor, where Francia as a whole might have been lacking, Jerusalem or Rome or Constantinople were rich, good measure and flowing over. Importing the traditions of other churches, appropriating their history, and thus making it part of his own, Chrodegang’s work lay at the foundation of the Carolingian spiritual revival of the later eighth and ninth centuries."

Wow, they borrowed and adapted things from Constantinople just like they did from Rome? That means, using your poor logic, that they created the Frankish-Greek Church. So you are not Orthodox at all. Your really Frankish-Greek.

Try actually thinking next time. No matter what the Franks did, if it was Frankish, then it was Frankish. You have not shown ANY cause and effect changes flowing from Frankish Gaul to Rome. So far, you have only SHOWN the OPPOSITE. You are defeating and undercutting your own argument. Yeah, of course you are. ROFLOL!!!

[Zemo]

Wow, they borrowed and adapted things from Constantinople just like they did from Rome? That means, using your poor logic, that they created the Frankish-Greek Church. So you are not Orthodox at all. Your really Frankish-Greek.

Nonsense and that is not what was written. This is:

The act of creation itself would often involve a sort of cobbling together of bits of the past gathered here and there, a bundling of whatever information and knowledge might be available, and a fitting of this newly made historical bricolage into a framework that the writers of the original sources might not have recognized.

Thus the charge that the Latin Church is really more accurately called the Frankish-Latin Church.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "So were the Catholic Germans who sided with Father Martin Luther."

Absolutely! And that still doesn't matter. You are claiming the Franks changed Catholic theology. No proof has been offered of course. Your claim rests on a completely unproven flow of change supposedly coming from the Franks and changing Roman teaching. If you can claim that (without a single shred of proof) then I can easily, and much more logically, claim that Leo the Isaurian was influenced by Muslims and therefore some Orthodox embraced iconoclasm and tried to change church doctrine as a result. Martin Luther would be neither here nor there in any case. His heresy was not inspired by an outsider, a foreigner, another national church or Muslims.

You do understan how logic works right?

[Zemo]

You are claiming the Franks changed Catholic theology. No proof has been offered of course.

See book I linked above for proof.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "Nonsense and that is not what was written. This is:"

Zemo, I quoted from THE VERY PAGE THAT WAS LINKED TO BY YOU. Get a clue. I cut and pasted from that very page you linked to. If you can't tell when the passage that you yourself linked to is being used then you might want to rethink using it as a source!!!

"Thus the charge that the Latin Church is really more accurately called the Frankish-Latin Church."

Is still bogus. You have yet to prove a single example of the Franks affecting any church other than their own. I don't expect evidence from you. You have already been shown to be lacking in the right department. You don't even know your own sources well!