Should Catholic priests have the right to marry?

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.

You wrote:

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

Peter did.

"And then tell us why Paul was not aware of this term."

Present your evidence that he was not aware of this term. Choosing not to use it is not the same thing as being unaware of it.

"Perhaps then he would have called his Epistle to the Romans: the Epistle to the Babylonians."

Your first mistake is assuming he named his letter. Do you name letters you right? Those names are appended later, by readers and copyists. Please think.

"Peter wrote and spoke in straight forward terms and was the apostle to the circumcision [the Jews]."

Yes, Peter generally wrote in a straightforward way. That doesn't mean he wanted everything understood in an obvious and clear way, however. Nor did he preach only to Jews as I already posted.

"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."

Incorrect. Whether Jews were ousted by order of the emperor from Rome would not necessarily effect Peter. He may not have had a choice in being in Rome. He may have been a prisoner. Or he may have traveled incognito.

"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."

Sure there is. There is the testimony of the fathers. That is an incomplete record, but the consensus that Peter was in Rome and was martyred under Nero is there.

"Not from Scripture, Tacitus, Josephus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ignatius, or any other early ante-Nicene father."

Scripture says Peter was to be crucified -- or didn't you know that? Tacitus says almost nothing about Christ. Does that mean He didn't exist? Josephus may not have known or cared. Justin Martyr was physically far removed from Rome. Irenaeus may simply have had no reason to mention all that you wish he did. He did mention Peter as bishop of Rome, however. You know that right?

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

Find any quotes about what exactly? Was Peter in Rome? Yes, there are plenty of quotes. Was he in Rome as a bishop? Yes, plenty of evidence there too. Was he martyred? Yep, evidence there too.

IGNATIUS
"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Epistle to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).

DIONYSIUS
"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Epistle to Pope Soter of Rome [A.D. 166], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

IRENAEUS
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).

IRENAEUS
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]" (ibid., 3:3:3).

IRENAEUS
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall . . . [point] out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 190], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6:14:1).

GAIUS
"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:5).

TERTULLIAN
"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood, where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (De Prescriptione 36 [A.D. 200]).

TERTULLIAN
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

THE LITTLE LABYRINTH
"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5:28:3).

POPE ANTERUS
"Peter, our holy master and the prince of the apostles, was translated for the sake of the common good from Antioch to Rome, in order that he might be in a position there of doing more service" (Letter on the Translation of Bishops [A.D. 235]).

POEM AGAINST THE MARCIONITES
"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. . . ." (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).

EUSEBIUS
"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).

PETER OF ALEXANDRIA
"Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome" (Penance, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).

LACTANTIUS
"When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew" (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [A.D. 316]).

All of the above were ante-Nicene writers.

"The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, greets you" [1 Peter 5:13]

The burden of proof is on you to prove that Peter was not in Babylon as he wrote and that he meant something other than "Babylon" by the word "Babylon".

Thanks for posting all of these quotes because it shows just how a myth grows from a little bush to a large tree.

IGNATIUS "Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Epistle to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).

Where does he say that they were in Rome? Peter and the apostles gave commands at the Council of Jerusalem that affected Gentiles. He could be referring to that.

DIONYSIUS "You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Epistle to Pope Soter of Rome [A.D. 166], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

Dionysius [whoever he was?] loses his credibility when he indicates that Peter was involved in the planting of the church of Corinth. He was probably as involved with Corinth as he was with Rome.

IRENAEUS "Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).

Where was Irenaeus getting this from? He lists no sources. We know that Paul's letter in 56 AD was the first contact the church of Rome had with any apostle. And Paul was not doing much "evangelizing" from his prison cell. So just when were they together in Rome? doing this evangelizing together? This statement lacks credibility.

IRENAEUS "The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]" (ibid., 3:3:3).

Neither of the apostles built up the church of Rome. Read Paul's letter. No apostle had been there, and yet it was a thriving church. Linus was mentioned by Paul, not Peter. Paul did not need Peter if he wanted to appoint Linus or anybody, but none of the apostles did any sort of appointing.

IRENAEUS "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall . . . [point] out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

This is just Irenaeus pontifications without evidence. Where are his citations from the writings of Peter or Paul?Surely something of this magnitude would be down on paper from these two apostles. And was the church of Rome more ancient than the church at Antioch and Jerusalem?

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA "The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 190], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6:14:1).

So now where is Paul in this story. He now gets written out by Clement who adds his own additions. Where did all that come from? Any citations?

GAIUS "It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:5).

So now the mythmakers are reduced to citing the names on a gravemarker as evidence and some obscure person named Gaius who was alive 198 -- 217 AD --- 150 years later? And that is supposed to be credible evidence?

TERTULLIAN "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood, where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (De Prescriptione 36 [A.D. 200]).

So now Tertullian throws in "the passion like our Lord" without citing anyone before him.?

TERTULLIAN "[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

First Irenaeus tells us that Paul and Peter ordained Linus, now Tertullian tells us that it was Peter alone and that he ordained Clement instead? Don't you wish they could get their stories about this straight before writing it down?

THE LITTLE LABYRINTH "Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5:28:3).

What happened to Paul? Irenaeus says that Linus was the first bishop not Peter? All of these writers tell different stories.

EUSEBIUS "[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).

Here is a father of the church who forgets to mention that Peter was a pillar of the church in Jerusalem. Did he really establish the church in Antioch? Where does he get this 25 years? ???

LACTANTIUS "When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome ...

I thought it was 25 years beginning in 42 AD during the reign of Claudius. Lactantius and Eusebius should have compared notes before writing this. No one can seem to get their story straight.

There was a Peter there in Rome from 42 AD to 67 AD and his real name was Simon the Magician. He was there under Claudius and brought with him the sorcery of Babylon. There is your Babylon. It was brought to Rome by Simon Magus, the Samarian magician, who set up an ecclesiastical organization that ran parallel with the Church there in Rome. It had bishops and they called themselves "Christians". Check Justin Martur and Irenaeus and other ante-Nicenes. The Catholic Church has confused Simon Peter with Simon Magus who was pretending to be Peter and deceived a lot of people both then and throughout history.

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.