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.
Sorry, it's 1 Tim 3:14-15. My mistake. I need a new Bible without pages practically hanging out of it!
" ... the answers that you desperately need are in there."
The only answer I need is in John 1:1. Thanks though for your eternal concern for my salvation.
You wrote: "Was there ever a time when anyone in The Church denied ....+Peter's presence in Rome or that the bishops of Rome are the successors to +Peter?"
Not that I know of off hand. There may have been some heretics (heretics for other reasons really) who did so.
What about 1 Cor 3:11?
You're welcome. I'm sure that the magisterium of that 25 year episcopacy in Rome will be glad to know that they have a true believer in you. Give them my regards.
"Because it may to God's word."
What word and how so?
What about it?
1 Timothy is talking about one thing, 1 Corinthians another.
You do realize that right? You're not micro-focusing to the point of obsciring everything else because of the word "foundation" are you? That would be a mistake.
When inside St. Peter's gate in heaven, I will.
The pillar and ground of the truth is Christ Jesus. They are talking about the same thing.
Please write it down somewhere so you don't forget. You know how long those layovers in purgatory can be.
You wrote: "The pillar and ground of the truth is Christ Jesus."
The verse says the Church. You apparently have a problem with scripture and not me.
"They are talking about the same thing."
No, actually they aren't. The Greek words involved are also different. By why let facts het in the way of ignorance, right?
You wrote: "Please write it down somewhere so you don't forget. You know how long those layovers in purgatory can be."
No, I don't know, nor will I. There is no time in the after life you see.
"The Greek words involved are also different."
Excuse my ignorance and tell me what greek words?
What would it matter if you don't know Greek? If you are ignorant, as you just admitted, how would me telling you the Greek words involved mean anything to you?
I think you should make more effort to actually own up to the level we would all like this discussion to be on. If you don't know enough to handle this discussion then maybe you should jump into the Shrike, or the Jade Sabre, or the Jade Shadow -- whatever it is you're flying these days -- and find something more your level.
I've read the the two scriptures in dispute and I believe they are the same.
What greek words? As you argue.
What does my screenname have to do with anything in relation to this discussion?
You wrote:
"I've read the the two scriptures in dispute and I believe they are the same."
Based upon what I have seen you post, I have absolutely no reason to believe you are competent to make any such judgment.
"What greek words? As you argue."
Nah, it's just not worth my time. I can't see why it would be a fruitful discussion. Can you tell me how it would be when you have ignored the evidence posted thus far?
"What does my screenname have to do with anything in relation to this discussion?"
Nothing. Did I say it did? No.
Are you afraid?
You wrote:
"Are you afraid?"
No. Should I be?
Then present your argument about what two greek words there are and what they mean.
I've read the two scriptures in dispute in english as translated by the King James 1611 version of the bible and they are basically saying that Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Church.
Jesus is the Church.
Why did Charlemagne accuse the Greeks of omitting the filioque from the original creed then if not to draw a distinction between east and west?
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.