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.
You wrote:
"I've been accused of all sorts of things on FR."
Uh, you're not crying are you?
"That I'm prideful, unlearned, etc. But yes, I've read it."
Good. Then you noticed the no fewer than seven references to Christ not being the Church, but she being loved by Him, He presenting the Church to Himself (which He souldn't do if He were her!).
"Esp. Ephesians 5:24. But we keep discussing about which Bible I read and about greek words that are never posted in this thread."
I don't keep discussing it. I merely respond to your posts in a way I deem appropriate. We haven't discussed the Greek words because I haven't told you what they are.
Now, if you really believe in Ephesians 5:24, go find Luke and make him dinner.
You wrote: "So you are stating that married men may become priests serving in ALL Churches which recognize the authority of the Pope and not just some of the them?"
There are married priests in ALL Churches loyal to the pope. All of them. Not all priests, however, are married. In the Roman Church, it has been the tradition for the last 1,000 or so years to have an unmarried clergy. Married men are usually not ordained in the Roman Church. There are only 80 to 120 married Catholic priests in the Roman Church today for instance. The rest voluntarily took a vow of celibacy before their ordination. Does that answer your question?
I've read it myself. There is no question, greek aside.
No, it does not answer the question. Let's tighten the semantics down a bit more.
Why were some married men allowed to become priests in the Roman Church while most are required to take a vow of celibacy?
Are there any estimates as to the number of married priests that might currently exist in the Roman Catholic Church if they were permitted to wave their vow of celibacy and marry prior to ordination?
You wrote: "I've read it myself. There is no question, greek aside."
There is no question that Christ is NOT the Church, but that the Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is the head of the Body.
You aren't following that though are you?
You wrote:
"No, it does not answer the question. Let's tighten the semantics down a bit more."
No, your question was answered. No "semantics" were involved.
"Why were some married men allowed to become priests in the Roman Church while most are required to take a vow of celibacy?"
1) No one is required to take a vow of celibacy. It is voluntary. All vows are by their nature voluntary. 2) The Roman Church decided almost a 1,000 years ago it was best to ordain unmarried men. 3) Those men in the Roman Church who are married priests are a special case (i.e. not raised in the Church, converts, with later in life vocations). They are subject to the Pastoral Provision issued in the 1980's.
"Are there any estimates as to the number of married priests that might currently exist in the Roman Catholic Church if they were permitted to wave their vow of celibacy and marry prior to ordination?"
Not that I am aware of.
You wrote: "You aren't following that though are you?"
Yes, I already did.
"Here is what you are not getting - it was also the Western tradition."
I was aware of that piece of trivia. And I didn't mention it because most contemporary Catholics, myself included, view it as irrelevant.
I was not alive when married Priests were the tradition in the western church. My grandfather was not alive when married Priests were the tradition in the western church. You could go back a dozen generations and still have people who were not yet born when married Priests were the tradition in the western church.
At a certain point, the tradition of the last several hundred years IS the relevant tradition, notwithstanding what may have existed prior to that date. So contrary to your assertion, I'm perfectly content with the idea that a tradition is valid and is in fact "the" relevant tradition, given that it has been in practice since the middle ages. This is not a fundamental issue of the faith, it's simply a question of tradition and canon law.
You could take a "which-tradition-was-first" logic to it's lunatic extreme. Why stop with the issue of celibacy? Let's look at liturgical traditions as well. I go to an eastern Catholic church, and if you're familiar with the eastern Catholic churches, you know that we usually celebrate the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Well, that's an old tradition to be sure, and dates from around A.D. 400. But in truth, it's a newfangled innovation because it was based on another, older Liturgy: the Liturgy of St. Basil. But then again, that's a newfangled innovation as well, as it was based on the still older Liturgy of St. James. So would you suggest that we have to celebrate the oldest Liturgy simply because it's the oldest? And presumably we'd have to celebrate it in Aramaic as well?
Not to the Orthodox - it is as it always was.
The Greeks called the area of Babylon "Mesopotamia", but the Jews called the area of Mesopotamia "Babylon". And if you notice on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem, there are Jews there in Jerusalem from Mesopotamia. "Babylon" had been an empire not just a city. It was Mesopotamia as well --- the land between the rivers and there were a lot of people there.
And by the way, the Iraqi Church might not have a tradition of having been founded by the apostle Peter [no one said they did, especially if it was founded shortly after 30 AD by those Jews there in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost from Mesopotamia], but they do have a copy of the letter postmarked from there by the apostle Peter in their Bibles, don't they?
"Mesopotamia" is a place. "Babylon" is a city. There was a "Babylonian Empire," but that had ceased to exist long before. The Epistle says "in Babylon," not in "Babylonia," or "Mesopotamia," or "in the Babylonian empire".
And by the way, the Iraqi Church might not have a tradition of having been founded by the apostle Peter
They have no tradition of Peter having been there at all.
On the other hand, we definitely know that mid-first century Jewish apocalyptic literature referred to Rome as "Babylon," and we know that the Roman Christians have a very ancient tradition of Peter having been there, attested to by Irenaeus, Eusebius, and others, and also attested to by the archaeological evidence found under St. Peter's basilica.
Similarly, we know from tradition that Peter was in Antioch before he was in Rome.
No, but I am clearly not the only one who doesn't believe Irenaeus on this point and neither do honest Catholic scholars like Richard P. McBrien who writes in Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St Peter to Benedict XVI:
"Although Catholic Tradition, beginning in the late second and third centuries, regards St. Peter as the first bishop of Rome, and therefore, as the first pope, there is no evidence that Peter was involved in the initial establishment of the Christian community in Rome (indeed what evidence there is would seem to point in the opposite direction) or that he served as Rome's first bishop . . . He often shared his position of prominence with James and John . . . However, there is no evidence that before his death Peter actually served the Church of Rome as its first bishop, even though the "fact" is usually taken for granted by a wide spectrum of Catholics and others." [Harper, S.F. 2005, pp 25,29]
Are you still citing those apocryphal sources as authoritative.
So then are you saying that the "Babylonian Talmud" was really written in Rome? That it is really a code word for the "Roman Talmud"?
The mystics may not have known where Babylon was, or that it was the place of their diaspora, but the Jews of Peter's day sure did. He was writing to the Jews of Asia Minor, and as such used the name of the place with which they were familiar: Babylon or Babylonia, they knew what he meant and where he was.
Do they have Peter's first epistle in their Bibles.? Do they have verse 5:13 of that epistle in their Bibles? If they do, then they have that "tradition", but must have just forgotten about it when the Roman magisterium came to town.
This is what we know:
1) Christian scholars overwhelmingly believe the reference to Babylon was a codeword for Rome.
2) Early Christians, according to ALL of the evidence, believe that Babylon was a code word for Rome.
3) Early Christian writings (those of the Fathers and those of apocryphal writers) use Babylon as a code word for Rome or say that Babylon is a code word for Rome.
4) No one apparently denied the obvious until they, the Protestant Revolutionaries, wanted to separate themselves from the pope.
5) You can't refute any of the above.
6) You have presented exactly no evidence against the above.
Actually, from what I can tell this notion started even later. By the 18th Century, the European wars that were being fought over religion had pretty much ended. With that, a new generation of Protestants came along who didn't seem to hate Catholics like others did in the past. So the anti-Catholic bigots started inventing new issues. The absurdity of Peter never being in Rome was one and most of the issues concerning the Blessed Virgin were also fabricated then (ALL Protestant Reformers believed in her Perpetual Virginity, the Assumption and held a substantial belief in her being sinless).
I would like to see you explain to Christ the perils of his "unnatural" state.
You mean this is what you say.
1) Christian scholars overwhelmingly believe the reference to Babylon was a codeword for Rome . . . Early Christian writings (those of the Fathers and those of apocryphal writers) use Babylon as a code word for Rome or say that Babylon is a code word for Rome.
Did Paul and Peter and the other apostles have that code book? And all those people in Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor, and even in Rome? How come they didn't know about this code word? They weren't living in the magisterium's fantasyland back then.
And now you are reduced to citing mystics and gnostics as authoritative. That is merely further evidence of their confusion and the confusion of those who cite them as authoritative.
4) No one apparently denied the obvious until they, the Protestant Revolutionaries, wanted to separate themselves from the pope.
you mean, until they got Bibles in their hands and read them and saw that the Papal Magisterium had been lying to them for 1200 years.
5) You can't refute any of the above.
I just did and I will continue to do so below.
6) You have presented exactly no evidence against the above.
How about The Universal Standard Encyclopedia: Babylon: " . . . Even after the founding of of Baghdad, Babylon remained the capitol of the district. Later it became simply a village . . . ".
So Babylon in Peter's day was a village, a caravan stop as others have characterized it here. What a great place to start a church --- in a village that was a caravan stop carrying goods east and west and where all the people in the surrounding area of Babylonia [Mesopotamia]would come to trade and share the news carried by the caravaners. And furthermore, a great place to mail a letter that is to be delivered to the sojourners in Asia Minor along the way of those caravans headed to and from Rome.
So are you going to tell us that "Babylon" was not a real place in Peter's day?
You wrote:
“You mean this is what you say.”
No. That is what we know. Refute any of it if you can. Of course you can’t. Still you wasted our time with this:
“Did Paul and Peter and the other apostles have that code book?”
Did John when he used 666? No.
“And all those people in Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor, and even in Rome?”
No. Clearly none was needed. Only you and other Protestants deny what is known. You need a code book. We already have the knowledge.
“How come they didn't know about this code word?”
They did. Prove otherwise. Again, there are references to Rome as Babylon in apocrypha as well. They knew. You don’t.
“They weren't living in the magisterium's fantasyland back then.”
You’re the one in a fantasy land. Can you refute what I pointed out or not? You aren’t even trying.
“And now you are reduced to citing mystics and gnostics as authoritative.”
Nope. If you want to call mainstream Protestant scholars of the last 500 years “Gnostics” go ahead.
“That is merely further evidence of their confusion and the confusion of those who cite them as authoritative.”
You’re confused. I’m not.
“you mean, until they got Bibles in their hands and read them and saw that the Papal Magisterium had been lying to them for 1200 years.”
Nope. Most of the earliest Protestants actually believed “Babylon” in 1 Peter was a code word for Rome. Also, they always had Bibles.
“I just did and I will continue to do so below.”
No, actually you didn’t refute anything. All you did was dispute it. That is not refutation. You really don’t know how logical argumentation works do you? Do you need us to help you with that too? That’s okay, we’re used to schooling Protestants anyway.
“How about The Universal Standard Encyclopedia: Babylon: " . . . Even after the founding of of Baghdad, Babylon remained the capitol of the district. Later it became simply a village . . . ". “
That in no way refutes anything I posted since I never once questioned the actual existence of the city. LOL!!! Is that the best you can do? You refute something that isn’t even asserted by me? Hilarious. You just can’t do this.
“So Babylon in Peter's day was a village, a caravan stop as others have characterized it here. What a great place to start a church --- in a village that was a caravan stop carrying goods east and west and where all the people in the surrounding area of Babylonia [Mesopotamia]would come to trade and share the news carried by the caravaners. And furthermore, a great place to mail a letter that is to be delivered to the sojourners in Asia Minor along the way of those caravans headed to and from Rome. So are you going to tell us that "Babylon" was not a real place in Peter's day?”
I never once said it wasn’t a real place. Why do you lie about what I said? Listen, I don’t mind you embarrassing yourself by trying to refute obviously known history, but there’s absolutely no reason to lie about what I said. I never once said there was no Babylon. I never once said that Babylon no longer existed, had no population in it, etc. Don’t lie about what I said. Do you think you can muster up the integrity to actually deal with what I said rather than making things up out of thin air?
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.