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.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "See book I linked above for proof."

I did. Make a claim or don't.

[vladimir998]

Zemo, when will you get the courage to deal with the following already posted to you once before:

"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)."

Or how about:

"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."

Any comment? Attempt at refutation? Links to books you haven't actually read and don't understand?

[Zemo]

1) filioque didn't start with the Franks right? Yes, but the Franks did use this as a way to break the Latins away from the influence of Constantinople.

Per Romanides which you mentioned: The Franks deliberately provoked doctrinal differences in order to break the national and ecclesiastical unity of the Roman nation, and thus separate, once and for all, the revolutionary West Romans under their rule from the East Romans. The free Romans supposedly have `changed' their nationality by becoming heretics, by moving their capital from Old Rome to New Rome, and preferring Greek over Latin. So goes the argument of Emperor Louis II in his letter to Emperor Basil I in 871, as we saw.

Because of this deliberate policy, the Filioque question was about to take on irreparable dimensions. Up to this time, the Filioque was a Frankish political weapon which had not yet become a theological controversy because the Romans hopefully believed that the Papacy could dissuade the Franks from their doctrinal dead-end approach. When it became clear that the Franks were not going to retreat from these politico-doctrinal policies, the Romans accepted the challenge and condemned both the Filioque and the Frankish double position on icons at the Eighth Ecumenical Synod of 879 in Constantinople-New Rome.

[Zemo]

Some historians have suggested that the Franks in the 9th century pressured the Pope to adopt the filioque in order to drive a wedge between the Roman Church and the other patriarchates. It is true that the filioque had come into wide use in the West and was widely thought to be an integral part of the Creed, while Rome, renowned for its stability in Orthodoxy, resisted. Similarly, unleavened bread had come to be thought of as normative for the Eucharist; diocesan priests were expected to be unmarried. In such cases, in the West, ancient tradition was forgotten. Contemporary usage was thought to be normative and authentic. In these matters of discipline, the influence of the Franks is certain. They intended to exalt Charlemagne, as the new Roman Emperor. The Catholic religion, as they knew it, was to be part of the package. Meanwhile, from ca. 726 to 843, the Eastern Roman Empire, under the thumb of successive emperors, was dominated by the heresy of iconoclasm. Both Franks and Greeks, in their own way, departed from ancient tradition. Unlike the East, however, where iconoclasm was repudiated at the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the use of icons later confirmed by the Empress Theodora, the West to date never recovered from its departure.

[Zemo]

From Spain, ‘filioque’ spread to the Franks (present-day France). It was embraced by Charlemagne who went so far as to accuse the East of having deliberately omitted it from the ancient Creed. Pope Leo III (795-816) intervened, and forbade any interpolations or alterations in the Nicene Creed. He ordered the Creed, without filioque, to be engraved in Latin and Greek on two silver plates on the wall of St. Peter’s in Rome. Nevertheless, the addition was maintained by the Franks. The dispute grew (many historians think Charlemagne used the filioque in an attempt to justify his claim to be emperor against the Emperor of the Roman Empire located in Constantinople) between East and West and was the focus of the council of Constantinople which met A.D. 879-880. This council (recognised as the Eighth Ecumenical Council by Orthodox Christians) reaffirmed the creed of A.D. 381 and declared any and all additions to the creed invalid. This council’s teaching was affirmed by the patriarchs of Old Rome (John VIII), New Rome [Constantinople] (Photius), Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria and by Emperor Basil I.

Still, filioque continued to be used by the Franks and spread to the Germans. The filioque began to be used in Rome, probably first at the coronation of Henry II in 1014. Historians see this as a passive acceptance by the pope (Benedict VIII) due to his reliance on the Germans for military protection. From that time, the Romans began adding the filioque to the creed and have continued doing so.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "1) filioque didn't start with the Franks right? Yes, but the Franks did use this as a way to break the Latins away from the influence of Constantinople."

1) Thanks for admitting you were wrong about the Franks and filioque. You're still wrong, however. Let me explain:

2) Let's say that the Franks did use the filioque issue to break from the influence of Constantinople. How would that move be a change in doctrine (again, even some EOs admit that filioque was NOT a change in doctrine in the West)?

3) You seem to have the world upside down here. Why do you assume there WAS influence from Constantinople to break Rome from? You are assuming something without any evidence offered.

"Per Romanides which you mentioned: The Franks deliberately provoked doctrinal differences in order to break the national and ecclesiastical unity of the Roman nation, and thus separate, once and for all, the revolutionary West Romans under their rule from the East Romans."

Evidence? Also, again, if the filioque was already current in much of the West centuries before it became a dividing point between West and East you would have to prove the following for Romanides claim to be true:

1) there was a politico-religious conspiracy on the part of the Franks to use filioque to divide East and West.

2) There was no natural desire on the part of Romans to defend a doctrine they already believed in.

3) No one noticed what was happening, no one recorded it, no one wrote a thing about it. (Apparently)

That sounds highly implausible to say the least.

"The free Romans supposedly have `changed' their nationality by becoming heretics, by moving their capital from Old Rome to New Rome, and preferring Greek over Latin. So goes the argument of Emperor Louis II in his letter to Emperor Basil I in 871, as we saw."

Who cares? Was Louis a pope? No. What he thought was meaningless to what we are discussing unless you can show HE caused a change in doctrine.

"Because of this deliberate policy, the Filioque question was about to take on irreparable dimensions. Up to this time, the Filioque was a Frankish political weapon which had not yet become a theological controversy because the Romans hopefully believed that the Papacy could dissuade the Franks from their doctrinal dead-end approach."

Uh, as I already noted, the idea that the filioque was a Frankish created (for lack of a better word) thing -- as "Up to this time" implies -- is utter nonsense. You even admitted such earlier in the post. Now you are essentially contradicting yourself.

"When it became clear that the Franks were not going to retreat from these politico-doctrinal policies, the Romans accepted the challenge and condemned both the Filioque and the Frankish double position on icons at the Eighth Ecumenical Synod of 879 in Constantinople-New Rome."

So where is the Frankish-Latin Church? No where to be found. Again, you contradict yourself. Do you understand the point of argumentation? You do realize that you are defeating your own side right?

[Zemo]

How can one sentence of mine be a contradiction? If I did not fully explain it it is because this is a a forum not a dissertation page.

Thus I fully expanded my position in several links above.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "Still, filioque continued to be used by the Franks and spread to the Germans. The filioque began to be used in Rome, probably first at the coronation of Henry II in 1014. Historians see this as a passive acceptance by the pope (Benedict VIII) due to his reliance on the Germans for military protection. From that time, the Romans began adding the filioque to the creed and have continued doing so."

Oh, so now it's the Germano-Latin Church? ROFLOL!!!

So you were wrong again?

Where's the evidence for any of this? I see posts with no reputable citations. You cited a book that actually contradicted you. Now you cut and paste Romanides who is not taken by most (other than Orthodox!) to be a reputable historian. As one reader wrote: "If Fr. Romanides told me the sky was blue, I'd stick my head out the window, just to double check."

[Zemo]

Oh, so now it's the Germano-Latin Church? ROFLOL!!!

You are being disingenuous. The link clearly states and the position I mentioned is that the innovations of the Franks influenced the Latin church so that after them the Church is more accurately called the Frankish-Latin Church. So spreading it to the Germans does not alter the fact that what was spread to the Germans was the Frankish rite. The Germans did not change the rite to get to name it after themselves - which is the criteria for accreditation.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "How can one sentence of mine be a contradiction?"

When it contradicts another sentence of yours. Again, you do know something about logical argumentation right?

"If I did not fully explain it it is because this is a a forum not a dissertation page."

So ideas are to be presented half-baked? You mean a forum only requires accuracy only sometimes, and precision only occasionally?

"Thus I fully expanded my position in several links above."

No. You did not "fully" expand your position. All you did was post links, or cut and paste large paragraphs that acted as links as well. Build an argument. Present evidence of a type and proportion that ACTUALLY proves what you are claiming. Use reputable sources. DOn't contradict yourself. Don't use sources you haven't actually read. Don't make claims you can't support or document. Think logically.

Is that too much to ask? Apparently so.

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[Zemo]

So ideas are to be presented half-baked? You mean a forum only requires accuracy only sometimes, and precision only occasionally?

Again, you are being disengenious. I followed up my statement with a link that fully explains my words.

And I will give you a lesson on logic - what you are doing is illustrated by the following example.

For the sake of argument I will write a sentence like 'Jesus is God'. And then write 'Jesus is the son of God.' What you are doing in all this is taking such short sentences of mine and writing back - aha! 'You contradict yourself - how can Jesus be God and the Son of God?' That is what you are doing in terms of debate tactics.

Of course I would respond by linking an article on the Trinitarian aspect but then you would ignore that link.

[Zemo]

Did I use any insults? I don't think so. If I did my apolgies - I am pretty sure I only answered charges with links to explain my position more fully.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "You are being disingenuous."

LOL!!! I point out, using YOUR logic, what must be the case and you say I am being "disingenuous"? Hilarious!

"The link clearly states and the position I mentioned is that the innovations of the Franks influenced the Latin church so that after them the Church is more accurately called the Frankish-Latin Church."

The link could state that you are a Martian. Where's the proof? Again, Romanides is not a reputable historian. Only the Orthodox take him seriously on this issue and there's a good reason why! And nothing you have posted yet as shown a single proof of the Franks influencing the Roman Church to change doctrine. Remember, logically for that to happen, you must prove the following: 1) a clear example of the Franks CAUSING a "change" in doctrine in the Roman Church, 2) that the "change" really was a "change" and not a definition or support of an already believed in doctrine. You have done exactly NONE OF THAT. Neither has Romanides.

"So spreading it to the Germans does not alter the fact that what was spread to the Germans was the Frankish rite."

1) Again, what evidence of that do you have? 2) Also, whatever rite was used, how is a rite a doctrine and not a rite? 3) And how did the Germans suddenly become perfectly synonymous with the Germans as if they were not different peoples (which they were)?

You are simply not making sense!

"And The Germans did not change the rite to get to name it after themselves - which is the criteria for accreditation."

What? What are you talking about?

[vladimir998]

You da' boss! Sorry, if I got out of line.

[Proud2BeRight]

I wonder if they could marry, would some of the ISSUES of that religion been reduced?

[Religion Moderator]

The discussion is interesting and I for one am enjoying it. Just avoid making it personal and all will be good.

[Zemo]

Where's the proof? Again, Romanides is not a reputable historian

Shame on you. My first link on the subject was from The Reform of the Frankish Church: Chrodegang of Metz and the Regula canonicorum in the Eighth Century Series: Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series (No. 61)

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.

That is heavy duty scholarship which like my earlier charge you avoid because you are not able to attack it so you ignore it. Even if you disagree with the book's thesis it is a scholarly book. And I only brought up Romanides because you did. I feel if you bring a person's name up you should post a link so someone reading in on this discussion as a third party can go and read for themselves.

You do know this is public and third parties read this, right? So every time you are being disingenuous it is plain for all to see.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "Again, you are being disengenious. I followed up my statement with a link that fully explains my words."

A link cannot fully explain anything. Post actual quotes from the info you are linking to. When you post to something that may be thousands of words long how is anyone to know what part you were relying on for support?

"And I will give you a lesson on logic - what you are doing is illustrated by the following example."

Oh, here we go:

"For the sake of argument I will write a sentence like 'Jesus is God'. And then write 'Jesus is the son of God.' What you are doing in all this is taking such short sentences of mine and writing back - aha! 'You contradict yourself - how can Jesus be God and the Son of God?' That is what you are doing in terms of debate tactics."

Nope. I never once did that. I actually showed how you were contradicting yourself. Look, there are only two possiblities here: 1) you're contradiction yourself, 2) you're writing in such a way that you appear to be contradicting yourself. I am not quoting out of context in any case. If your statements can't stand up to scrutiny then how is that my fault?

"Of course I would respond by linking an article on the Trinitarian aspect but then you would ignore that link."

The better thing to do would be to post an actual statement of evidence about the Trinity and then a link to FURTHER or explanatory information or the source of the quote. This way your statements are always compact, coherent, don't clutter a post with literally one or two dozen sentences that are all actually links, etc.

Brevity and clarity are always best.

And in any case, you still haven't shown a single example of cause and effect regarding the Franks. Theories and empty assertions just don't cut it. Romanides created a bogey man in the Franks. It was convenient for him. It also is a complete distortion of history.

[Zemo]

Thank you - being new I am trying to answer all things with links that back up my words.

By the way the book I linked on the subject of the Latin Church being subtly and not so subtly changed by the Franks sells for $85.00 on Amazon. The author is not exactly a lightweight on the historical matter.