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]

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.

Again, you are being disingenuous.

Did I not start the discussion - my first posted link was M. A. Claussen not Romanides and I posted an excerpted example from M. A. Claussen's work at least three times.

I posted Romanides because YOU brought him up not I. I thought it only proper a third party knows why you inserted him into the conversation.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

"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)"

Yes, it was. And there is no shame on my part at all. You said the source said one thing when it said another. You also have never read the book, right? I have pointed that out twice now. Are you willing to admit that you've never read it yet? The book is about the Frankish Church being influenced by outside influence and NOT about the Frankish Church influencing Rome. The blurb at the link suggests as much.

"That is heavy duty scholarship which like my earlier charge you avoid because you are not able to attack it so you ignore it."

Look, I have a PhD in Medieval History. My primary field was Church history. When you claim I "avoid" this or that "heavy duty scholarship" I can only laugh out loud. Again, nothing in the blurb you linked to, or in the paragraph you just posted claims what you claimed.

Let me demonstrate: "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."

Now, where in that passage do you see Roman Church mentioned? Nowhere. Because it isn't about the Roman Church. It is about the activities of Frankish cleric. Not a Roman one. It is about a Frankish cleric who adopted and adapted Roman and even Greek rituals for the reform of the Frankish Church. It is not at all about the Frankish Church influencing the Roman Church to change doctrine. The passage says exactly NOTHING about that. I defy you to show me where in that passage it says the Franks influenced the Romans to change a doctrine? Can you? No. You will fail. I have already pointed out before that this passage says nothing of what you claim it does.

"Even if you disagree with the book's thesis it is a scholarly book."

I entirely agree. I also never said otherwise. What I said was you used a source that contradicts you (that's this onw) and Romanides. That's all you got -- which ain't nothin'.

"And I only brought up Romanides because you did."

Because I am well aquainted with the usual limitations in knowledge on the part of EOs on this issue. For the EOs there is Romanides and nothing else but Romanides.

"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."

I think (you can "feel" all you like) that anyone here who sees a term or name that is unfamiliar can always use google.

"You do know this is public and third parties read this, right?"

Yes, but it is not my responsibility to hold everyone's hand either. Again, google.

"So every time you are being disingenuous it is plain for all to see."

Then no one will see anything since I have yet to be disingenuous.

Are you ever going to respond to the fact that there were EOs who renounced the Assumption of Mary merely because a pope defined it as a doctrine? That would be a change in EO doctrine would it not?

[Religion Moderator]

Attributing motives and reading the other poster's mind ("you are being disingenuous") is "making it personal."

Click on my profile page for more guidelines concerning the Religion Forum.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "The author is not exactly a lightweight on the historical matter."

No one said he was. He also never said what you claimed. That the problem.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "Again, you are being disingenuous."

Nope.

"Did I not start the discussion - my first posted link was M. A. Claussen not Romanides and I posted an excerpted example from M. A. Claussen's work at least three times."

And you still can't seem to grasp the obvious fact that Claussen did not say what you claim as a theory. Also, I never denied that your first link was to Claussen and not Romanides. You seem to be having a great deal of difficulty following this.

"I posted Romanides because YOU brought him up not I."

No, you posted Romanides because you believe his works support your argument. Now who is being disingenuous?

"I thought it only proper a third party knows why you inserted him into the conversation."

Then you didn't necessarily offer much help to that third party. You would have offered more help by simply posting the link to the beginning page of his book and leaving it at that. That way people can check it for themselves. By posting as you did, you made Romanides a central part of the discussion (which you claim you never intended) and we are now running down your various rabbit trails to nowhere.

[vladimir998]

Zeno, I'll probably just leave things here. I did want to post a quote from Claussen's book, however that directly contradicts your "Franks-influencing-Rome" theory:

"A second reason why Chrodegang has generally languished in the shadows suggests itself: he appears to have done nothing new or innovative himself. His rule seems to hew so closely to that of Benedict that it has been called a plagiarism; the canons of the councils he directed often simply repeated those of the past; his romanizing attitudes in liturgy and cult in fact first appeared in England, with the peculiar Anglo-Saxon devotion to the papacy.9 In fact, Chrodegang appears as a Boniface-manqué, without the fire, without the passion. And there is reason to this. Boniface does indeed seem to have been the first to undertake reforms that had the same characteristics as later efforts, especially those under Charlemagne and Louis the Pious. In his unswerving devotion to Rome, his obsession with promulgating certain aspects of canon law, and even his pastoral and missionary drive, Boniface appears to have prefigured what would come in later reform movements. This is, at least in part, an illusion. While many of Boniface’s ideas appear the same as later Carolingian ones, they are similar exactly in appearance, not in substance. For instance, the Carolingian devotion to Rome was radically different from Boniface’s, although they might at surface appear the same.10 The Carolingians looked to Rome for norms and exemplars that would then be subject to modification and adjustment before they could usefully be implemented in Francia. That is, after all, just what the Carolingians did with the Rule of Benedict, and books of canon law, liturgy, and theology which at various times they requested from Rome.11 Rome sometimes did not even supply the correct answers to difficult theological questions, and thus the true defense of the faith required the active intervention of the Franks themselves. We can see this attitude both in the preface to the Salic laws, which describes the Romans as slayers of saints and the Carolingians as preservers of relics, as well as in the controversies surrounding the Opus Caroli regis.12 Chrodegang points to a more critical attitude toward Rome: things coming from Rome, whether they be liturgical habits, manuscripts, theological pronouncements, or political arrangements, needed, like the past itself, to be adapted to fit into Frankish ways of doing things, and to meet particularities of Frankish traditions."

So the Frank in question was well known for "romanizing attitudes in liturgy and cult". And the "The Carolingians looked to Rome for norms and exemplars that would then be subject to modification and adjustment before they could usefully be implemented in Francia. That is, after all, just what the Carolingians did with the Rule of Benedict, and books of canon law, liturgy, and theology which at various times they requested from Rome."

Enough said. There has been no evidence at all presented that show the Franks influenced the Roman Church to change doctrine.

[Zemo]

Now, where in that passage do you see Roman Church mentioned?

I posted more than that @ #128

From Claussen's work:

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.

Thus the Frankish-Latin Church.

[Zemo]

A second reason why Chrodegang has generally languished in the shadows suggests itself: he appears to have done nothing new or innovative himself. His rule seems to hew so closely to that of Benedict

From Claussen: 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.

So your point fails.

[Zemo]

This is from a blog but I like the statement:

But, Charlemagne, in his political desire to claim Justinian the Great's universal Greco-Roman crown began to adopt Latin Augustinianism in a dogmatic and sectarian way. Indeed, in contrast to Justinian who struggled heroically, if unsuccessfully, to use Christian consensus as a unifying force for the Greco-Roman Empire, Karl the Barbarian (a/k/a Charlemange) chose to construe Augustine inconsistently with the prior Latin/Alexandrian/Cappodacian theological consensus and use dogmatic Augustinianism as a hammer against the Greek-speaking remnant of the once great Roman Empire. Hence, his infamous accusation that the Greeks has "omitted" the filioque from the Creed.

I guess Charlie didn't read or was a lair.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

"Thus the Frankish-Latin Church."

No. A text is not a doctrine. You claimed that the Franks changed Roman doctrine. Now you're saying that they changed Roman texts (which they very well may have only used among themselves!).

Make up your mind. Are you trying to prove that the Franks changed Roman doctrines (which then were adopted by all of the Catholic church in the west), which is what you were claiming earlier or are you now going to go with this newer claim of yours that it was Roman texts that were changed by the Franks?

You have claimed two different, and in fact contradictory, things.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

"So your point fails."

Nope. I am fully vindicated. After all, you claimed the Franks changed Roman teaching and that that created a new church, a Frankish-Latin Church. What you just posted shows that isn't what happened. Thw quote mentions the Franks took Roman texts (liturgical, etc) and adapted them. It says nothing whatsoever about the Romans taking things from the Franks, or Romans changing doctrines because of the Franks. NOTHING.

I really don't know why you keep defeating yourself like this.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "This is from a blog but I like the statement:"

Wow, now there's a statement that promises accuracy huh?

"I guess Charlie didn't read or was a lair."

A lair? You mean "liar"? He was not a liar in that case. Nor was he illiterate. He simply spoke as to what he knew. He was not a theologian.

And still, you have provided no evidence at all that the Frankish Church ever once exerted any influence over the Roman Church to change a single, solitary doctrine. Nothing. Nothing at all.

Also, the blogger was relying on the same less than reputable source (Romanides) that you are! Death Bredon is a Romanides fan after all!!!

[RKBA Democrat]

"So if someone is Irish and wants to be a married Catholic priest he has to move to the Western Ukraine and join the Greek Catholic Church?"

Better still, they should re-examine their rationale for wanting to be a Priest. We don't always get what we want in this world. For example, I wouldn't mind switching places with Bill Gates. I don't think I'm going to get to. You don't have any "right" to be a Priest, married, celibate, or otherwise. And the petulant whining from those who waaaaaannnnnt there to be a married Priests in the western (Roman) Catholic church is both tedious and tiresome.

A lot of this "debate" about priestly celibacy is nothing but a thinly veiled attack on Catholics and their traditions. I wish that others outside the Catholic churches would simply mind their own business.

As for the traditions of the respective churches. In the eastern Catholic churches, allowing married men to become Parish priests is generally the tradition. Celibate Parish Priests are the tradition in the western (Roman) Catholic church.

[Uncle Chip]

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

Who referred to Rome as Babylon in Peter's day?

And then tell us why Paul was not aware of this term. Perhaps then he would have called his Epistle to the Romans: the Epistle to the Babylonians.

Peter wrote and spoke in straight forward terms and was the apostle to the circumcision [the Jews]. The Jews had been kicked out of Rome in 49 AD by order of Claudius, so even Peter who was not even a Roman citizen would not be allowed to enter Rome much less remain there for any period of time.

We went through this on another thread in which we asked for any and all evidence of Peter's episcopacy in Rome per the legend of his 25 year reign with upside down crucifixion under Nero --- and there is none. Not from Scripture, Tacitus, Josephus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ignatius, or any other early ante-Nicene father.

Perhaps you can do better and find what they could not. Post the quotes from those early sources, if you can find any.

[Cronos]

Should not a universal church have universal rules?

It should have universal DOGMA. And on the basics of dogma, the CAtholic and Orthodox Churches are similar -- there are niggling differences though.

The idea of celibate priests is NOT a question of dogma. Or do you mean to say that ALL the rules followed by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church are similar to the RULES followed by the Russian Church?

[Cronos]

You're being real silly if you think the reunion of East and West relies purely on the Latin Catholic Church having married priests -- remember that the CATHOLIC church allows married priests among 21 of the 22 constituent churchs and it's still a unified, Catholic Church.

[Kolokotronis]

"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."

Church of Greece, but I don't know if they have any yet.

[bornacatholic]

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.

*Hey, Rod. You UnPoped. Shut the Hell up. The Pope has just recently said it ain't gonna change.

[bornacatholic]

Well, he is an orthodox, for now...

If they do something to anger him, he might start the Christian Church of Crunchy Conservatives;

[sitetest]

Dear bornacatholic,

Pity the poor Orthodox.

I almost feel guilty that we were able to get rid of him.

;-)


sitetest