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.
I own a Bible. There is also a reference to Babylon in Revelation as well as Peter 5:13. Which Babylon are we talking about?
What specific beliefs of mine are false according to Scripture. Thank you.
Are you having difficulty following this?
I did link, for your convenience, a very, very brief Protestant article which supports what I have been saying here. Look at the section on Revelation. When you've looked at it, get back to me. Thanks. Yes, there will be a quiz.
Again and for the last time, what specific charges of falsehood of mine are you making about my beliefs according to Scripture.
Just to let you know, several minutes ago Wagglebee left the thread.
In the five centuries since sola scriptura was invented, the Church has repeatedly declared that it is false. Whether you use the term sola scriptura or not, that is what you seem to adhere to.
From your own link:
"but there is no evidence that Peter was ever in Babylon"
Where was Peter?
I'm still here, I'm just done explaining facts. I've posted a link to the Catechism twice now, I daresay that it explains things better than I do.
oops, I spoke too soon.
I have to side with the evidence on this one. Sola scriptura is a modern invention. It is not evidenced in scripture anywhere, and therefore is self-refuting. It is unknown to Jews as well.
You wrote: "Where was Peter?"
In Rome.
My foundation is the Bible. I've never even heard or read sola scriptura. Prove your charge of my false beliefs according to the Bible.
You wrote: "My foundation is the Bible. I've never even heard or read sola scriptura. Prove your charge of my false beliefs according to the Bible."
You probably just expressed a belief in sola scriptura. Whether or not you are well educated enough to have heard or read the term before is immaterial.
There are married Roman Catholic priests in the Eastern Rite churches.
The real question is, why is there a double standard for Roman Catholic priests?
Sola scriptura means proving something based upon the Bible alone! I don't have to prove anything based on this, because I know it to be a fabricated falsehood.
What belief of mine is false according to scripture? All I'm asking for is just one example.
I just don't believe that Babylon is a codeword for Rome. Even your own link you provided above disputes it.
Do you believe in the Bible?
You wrote: "There are married Roman Catholic priests in the Eastern Rite churches."
Incorrect. There are married priests in the Eastern Catholic churches. There are no married "Roman Catholic" priests in the Eastern rite churches.
"The real question is, why is there a double standard for Roman Catholic priests?"
There is no doublestandard. The same thing is expected from every man who comes to the priesthood in the Roman Church as a single man.
Yes, and it tells me to also stand on tradition.
And the Bible also tells me the pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church.
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.