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.
"And where was the Holy Spirit, charged with guiding the Church of God, during all of this? Was He under Holy Spirit anesthesia? On vacation?"
I'll bet I've asked that question 50 times over the past couple of years and never have gotten an answer.
I'm confused, are you relying on tradition for this?
No, I read the bible where is said seven years from her virginity. Hence, the word "from".
Cite the verse please.
Where is that lineage documented in the Bible?
It was already cited by another poster, I just responded to it. Luke 2:36-38. BTW, this scripture is about serving God night and day and has nothing to do with celibacy.
The Lord's parents (the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph) took Him to Jerusalem when He was twelve.
And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? Behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
- Luke 2:48
The Blessed Mother clearly refers to Saint Joseph, so he must have been alive.
But what is most interesting is that there is no mention of any other children and the reason for that would be that there weren't any. You see, the Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph's sole focus was caring for the Son of God.
Luke 2:36 talks about Anna, NOT the Blessed Mother! It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HOLY FAMILY.
Yup....and a little further background. [Acts 8:9-10]"Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, "This man is the divine power known as the Great Power."
Where did Simon's ancestors come from? [II Kings 17:24] "The king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim and settled them in the towns of Samaria to replace the Israelites. They took over Samaria and lived in its towns." And this is what they did when they got there. [II Kings 17:33] "They worshiped the LORD, but they also served their own gods in accordance with the customs of the nations from which they had been brought."
And this is the reason Our Saviour told the Apostles to stay out of Samaria. [Matthew 10:5-6] "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel." This explains why Peter went to Babylon....not Rome. The "other" Simon went to Rome.
As I've explained to other Protestant posters earlier last week, until you can prove BIBLICALLY that "Sola Scriptura" is Biblical, I am not bounded to prove it using that reasoning. We know these things from historical records outside of the Canon of Scripture, and no reputable source argues to the contrary.
This still has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
I never said it did have anything to do with Mary. Where are you getting that from?
Bornacatholic was using that scripture to support celibacy.
I replied to Bornacatholic that Anna wasn't celibate during her marriage from my reading of that scripture and the fact that it hasn't a thing to do with celibacy.
I don't think you have to worry about me and justifying "tradition" and my understanding from reading the Word.
You're right it doesn't, it kinda got a little off topic in this thread.
I was mistaken, I thought you were referring to the Blessed Virgin.
You wrote: "Babylon existed then."
Are you so sure it was worth the effort at that time?
"How do we know Peter wasn't there at the real Babylon?"
We have no reason to doubt the sources. Even Christians in Mesopotamia believe Peter went to Rome. Besides, which Babylon? There were two you know? The second one was in Egypt. Did you even know that?
We are no more bound to prove something based upon the false teaching of "sola scriptura" than we are bound to prove something based on the Koran.
I have. Neither of them say anything remotely like this foolishness.
Hmmm --- Justin and Irenaeus have more to say about the facts of Simon Magus's bishopric in Rome than they do anything about that foolishness of Peter's mythical bishopric there.
But we are talking about Rome, Italy not Babylon, Egypt.
Except that the Catholic Church's whole faith and belief system is based on it.
No, the Church was founded nearly 1500 years before Martin Luther invented the falsehood of sola scriptura.
The Catholic Church hierocracy is not supported by the Bible.
Martin Luther and sola scriptura is not a concern of mine.
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.