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.
That's not correct, he mentioned the keys of the kingdom, by which that on earth could be bound or loosened in heaven, but He gave that to all of Apostles equally.
You wrote: "What belief of mine is false according to scripture? All I'm asking for is just one example."
Sola scriptura.
"I just don't believe that Babylon is a codeword for Rome."
Okay, so you reject something that is universally held by orthodox Christians for many centuries. What else is new?
"Even your own link you provided above disputes it."
No, actually it doesn't. It presents several views, but is clear about the reality of the research.
Ok then, why is there a double standard for priests serving in Churches which recognize the authority of the Pope?
Apostolic succession (i.e. the Keys) pass through Peter.
What about Matthew 15?
Apostolic succession pass through all of the Apostles who received the Holy Spirit from Christ.
You wrote: "Ok then, why is there a double standard for priests serving in Churches which recognize the authority of the Pope?"
There isn't.
"And the Bible also tells me the pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church."
What scripture? I thought the foundation of the Church was Christ.
I'm not a Pharisee.
I disagree.
You wrote: "What scripture? I thought the foundation of the Church was Christ."
Marajade, do you read your Bible? I am constantly amazed at how I have to point out verses to Protestants here.
Read 2 Tim 14-15
I don't know of any Pharisees today, do you? So Matthew 15 doesn't apply to today?
"I am constantly amazed at how I have to point out verses to Protestants here."
Who are you to classify me as a Protestant. You may say I am, but I do not.
Oh, I nearly forgot.
I wrote: "And the Bible also tells me the pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church."
But you misdirected what I said. You wrote: "What scripture? I thought the foundation of the Church was Christ."
The pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church. I said nothing about the "foundation of the Church" so why would you confuse those two.
Please pay attention. That helps.
The Lord spoke of the Jewish traditions of the Pharisees, those are totally different from the traditions of His Church.
And for the final time, I'm through responding to you. I have provided a link to the Catechism, the answers that you desperately need are in there.
I have a couple of questions for you all.
V & W, leaving aside the whole Babylon thing, it is demonstrable that from at least about 100 AD Christians believed that both +Peter and +Paul were at Rome. Thereafter the testimony of The Fathers as well as the bishops of The Church is uniform that +Peter was at Rome. Was there ever a time when anyone in The Church denied what The Church always and everywhere believed (and indeed prayed in its Kontakia, Troparia and Apolytikia) concerning +Peter's presence in Rome or that the bishops of Rome are the successors to +Peter?
And to you, M, why does it make a tinker's dam of difference to you, who apparently are neither Orthodox nor Eastern nor Roman Catholic, whether or not +Peter was at Rome? Certainly his location has no impact on the Apostolic succession of the bishops of Rome or on the traditional and canonical status of the See of Rome as the senior church in The Church, so I am at a bit of a loss as to your point.
What chapter of 2 Tim again please.
Every credible source has always said that he was martyred in Rome.
"And to you, M, why does it make a tinker's dam of difference to you, who apparently are neither Orthodox nor Eastern nor Roman Catholic, whether or not +Peter was at Rome?"
Because it may to God's word.
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.