Should Catholic priests have the right to marry?

beliefnet.com/blogs/crunchycon ^ | Wednesday, December 06, 2006 | Rod Dreher

[Campion]

No sources or footnotes in there anywhere. "It is estimated ..." by who? Where? Based on what?

In any case, the number of Jews in Iraq in the 1st century is pretty tangential to the question of whether a particular Jew, Simon bar Jonah called Peter, was ever there. It's not really a matter of probability ... the more Jews you have, the more likely that Simon Peter is one of them. ;-)

Peter was in Rome. Mark was in Rome. Mark was with Peter. Peter was martyred in Rome. Mark was martyred in Alexandria a couple of years later. Peter was buried a few hundred yards from where he was executed. Mark's bones were taken to Venice.

[Diego1618]

No sources or footnotes in there anywhere. "It is estimated ..." by who? Where? Based on what?

Well....I guess you have to read a little further to find out that this is excerpted from a speech given by David Dangoor.....thus no footnotes....plenty of sources throughout the web site, though. here's one.... The Jews of Iraq

But on the other hand we "do" know that the Talmud was developed in Des Moines not Babylonia, don't we? And it was developed during the current era....C.E. or A.D. if you prefer. Iowa has always been famous for it's Hebrew Academies.

[Campion]

I understand it was excerpted from a speech, but without footnotes, it's not of much use for scholarly purposes.

The Babylonian talmud (which still wasn't written in the ruins of Babylon) was written beginning about 300 years after 1 Peter. A lot of things can change in 300 years. 300 years ago the place where I'm sitting right now was inhabited by Indians, although on rare occasions a French or Spanish fur trapper or explorer might happen by.

I still don't know how the Jewish population in Iraq (in any era) is relevant to questions about whether the city of Babylon was inhabited in the 1st Century, where 1 Peter was written, or whether Peter was martyred in Rome. Do you?

[vladimir998]

Thanks for looking through Josephus! I thought it was in there somewhere.

We keep posting evidence that there were few if any Jews for Peter to minister to in Mesopotamia. All the evidence points toward what was always believed -- Rome. It's strange how anti-Catholic prejudice blurs the sight of some people isn't it?

[Uncle Chip]

The Babylonian talmud (which still wasn't written in the ruins of Babylon) was written beginning about 300 years after 1 Peter. A lot of things can change in 300 years.

Well, we do know one thing that didn't change. The Jews 800 years after the fall of the Babylonian Empire still called the area of Mesopotamia "Babylonia" after which they named their Babylonian Talmud. And there was a village caravan stop there at the time of Peter's writing called "Babylon".

300 years ago the place where I'm sitting right now was inhabited by Indians, although on rare occasions a French or Spanish fur trapper or explorer might happen by.

And how do you know that there were Indians there? Did they leave a written record like the Jews and Peter did? Any postcards mailed from there like Peter's epistle mailed from Babylon? or are you relying on simple hearsay, aka tradition?

I still don't know how the Jewish population in Iraq (in any era) is relevant to questions about whether the city of Babylon was inhabited in the 1st Century, where 1 Peter was written, or whether Peter was martyred in Rome. Do you?

Wasn't it you who told us that the city of Babylon was inhabited, that it was a caravan stop? The encyclopedia records that Babylon was a "village" at that time just north of present day Hilla in Iraq, and continued to be the capital of the district even after Baghdad was built.

Let us review what we know:

1]There was a huge Jewish population in Babylonia per Jewish, Muslim, and historic tradition backed up by credible written documentation.

2]Peter was called and dedicated to taking the Gospel to the Jewish people per tradition and scripture. He had to be dragged by God to even enter the house of Cornelius a Gentile and compelled by the Spirit to even preach the Gospel to the Gentile Cornelius, because his mission and his heart was to the Jews not to the Gentiles.

3] The Jews had been kicked out of Rome in 49 AD and thus he being a Jew and those Jews to whom he was called to take his Gospel were "personnas non grata" in Rome, especially those, like Peter, who were not Roman citizens. We know this by tradition and the written records.

4]Peter went where the Jews were, and there were "immense numbers" [per Josephus] in Babylonia, which incidentally was outside of the reach of the Roman Emperor Caligula or any other since it was part of the Parthian Empire.

5]While in Babylon, that village caravan stop with a Jewish church therein, Peter mailed a letter to the community of Jews in Asia Minor which was along the caravan trade routes. That church is now gone because that village is now gone, but the written record of Peter's visit remains in Bibles across the world.

That's not too hard to understand, is it?

[steadfastconservative]

Why are you posting an article by Rod Dreher, who left the Church? What can this apostate possibly contribute to the argument on clerical celibacy? For one thing, he is wrong about celibacy having been "imposed" on the Church only during the Middle Ages. Before 1139, when the Church prohibited married men from receiving Orders, all clerics, whether they were married or single, were required to practice perfect continence, that is, to be be perfectly chaste, after ordination. And this had been the ancient practice of the Church since patristic times. At the Council of Trullo in 691, the Eastern Churches departed from this practice when they decided that married priests and deacons could have conjugal relations after ordination, that they only needed to observe only periodic rather than perpetual continence after being ordained.

[Uncle Chip]

No sources or footnotes in there anywhere. "It is estimated ..." by who? Where? Based on what?

This was only a few posts back. You may have forgotten to remember it:

[Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, Chapter V, Paragraph 2]"When Esdras had received this epistle, he was very joyful, and began to worship God, and confessed that he had been the cause of the king's great favor to him, and that for the same reason he gave all the thanks to God. So he read the epistle at Babylon to those Jews that were there; but he kept the epistle itself, and sent a copy of it to all those of his own nation that were in Media. And when these Jews had understood what piety the king had towards God, and what kindness he had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased; nay, many of them took their effects with them, and came to Babylon, as very desirous of going down to Jerusalem; but then the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers."

Do you have a first century historical source that says different than Josephus. How about Tacitus? or doesn't he want to sully his reputation for the sake of such a preposterous denial of the facts of history just to keep that Roman Catholic myth of Peter from crashing to earth.

Catholic scholar Richard P. McBrien's: Lives of the Popes records:

"[T]here 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"[p 29].

Perhaps he has some footnotes and sources that can help you.

[Proud2BeRight]

"And as for "issues" (c'mon: "issues"?) --- if you're speaking of the sexual exploitation of children, that's way exceeded by abuse of children by teachers in the public schools:"

A quick look on the internet finds that in the US there are about 47,000 priests and 6,200,000 teachers. I see similar numbers of stories of abuse between the groups in Chicago area news. Although both are disgusting if there is even one event, to me there appears to be a disproportionate share from one group.

Personally, I have a very deep belief in Christ but a very callous view of organized churches and their leadership.

[Uncle Chip]

I found it. He talks about the Jews being driven out of the region around Babylon, and moving to Seleucia. Once in Seleucia [Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 9, paragraph 9]: Accordingly, they [Greeks and Syrians in Seleucia] fell upon them [the Jews], and slew about fifty thousand of them; nay, the Jews were all destroyed, excepting a few who escaped, either by the compassion which their friends or neighbors afforded them, in order to let them fly away. These retired to Ctesiphon, a Grecian city ...

It sounds like the Jewish population of the area around Babylon was driven out, and then mostly slaughtered.

That is not what it says in the quote above. It says that the "50,000 Jews" who the Greeks fell upon were destroyed except a few of the 50,000.

This would have been northwestern Mesopotamia, an area outside of the Parthian Empire. Babylon and most of Babylonia was in the Parthian Empire. And let's see: 1,000,000 Jews minus 50,000 leaves 950,000 Jews in Babylonia around Babylon, a great mission field for the Apostle Peter, who may have read some of Josephus's writings before going to Babylon.

[Zemo]

A) It seems it was the Latin practice as well until 1139

and

B) The Eastern Catholics continue with the practice of non celibate married before ordination clergy and we are told are still fully Catholic.

[Uncle Chip]

Marriage of the clergy may have been frowned upon, but is it true that many of the clergy had concubines instead. This from the Council of Basle:

"All ecclesiastical appointments shall be made according to the canons of the Church; all simony shall cease . . . all priests whether of the highest or lowest rank shall put away their concubines . . . ".

If it wasn't a common practice, then why would the Council of Basle have had to address the problem of this common clerical indiscretion.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Read the Charol Shakeshaft research (Google.) She's not just talking about raw totals: she's talking about percentages and per-capitas.

This doesn't justify any abuse...by anyone The wholet thing is a travesry. But the thig ou have to realize is that adults who have a twisted sexual attraction to the "young stuff" are disproportionately attracted to the professions where they will have the most ample opportunities to interact with their prey. This means:

• counselors and therapists
• coaches, recreation directors
• summer camp, youth activities coordinators
• clergy
• teachers I am not advocating a paranoid view of any adult who shows a strong preference for working with kids. But the reality is, we are living in a pathologically sexualized culture, and the predators -- predictably -- gravitate toward the prey.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Sorry for the typos. Must - drink - more - coffee ----

[Zemo]

Concubinage is not the issue - married clergy (married pre-ordination) clergy is the issue. We had at least 2 popes who were born into clerical families though the sons did not marry and rose to the rank of bishop.

Modern Catholics (and by modern I mean 1139 AD onwards) claim that married clergy is forbidden completly - yet:

A) It seems it was the Latin practice as well as an Eastern Orthodox until the Papal rules of 1139 and

B) The Eastern Catholics continue with the practice of non celibate married before ordination clergy and we are told are still fully Catholic and not in any error or sinful condition.

Either it is one or the other. A Latin Catholic can't claim pre-ordained married clergy are forbidden across the board and and yet claim it is not a problem for other Catholic clergy of the Eastern rites to continue the practice - and the Eastern Catholic clergy are not celibate in marriage either.

[FormerLib]

Someone who chooses FREELY to not take the vow will usually not be ordained.

Are you alleging that Roman Catholic men who to not take the vow are ever ordained? They you should be able to name some of the non-celibate priests who were ordained over the past year.

The same is true in the Orthodox Churches in that they do not ordain men and THEN have them marry.

Again with the semantics! That is NOT what we have been discussing. We have been discussing married men becoming priest which is most certainly allowed in the Orthodox Church and ALL of the Churchs that swear fealty to the Pope except the Roman Church (based only upon your previous statements).

A few years ago a Greek Orthodox bishop said that the GO church might have some celibate priests soon because so many seminarians were having trouble finding wives.

Poppycock! Such priests exist in all areas of Orthodoxy. Those who take monastic vows can become bishops. That a bishop would suggest that something which is already common place might happen soon proves the statement is pure Bravo Sierra.

Once ordained the men would not be able to marry. We are no different.

Again the semantic nonsense! You ARE different because you do not allow married men from the Roman Church to become priests! Only those converting from other churches and have already been ordained become married priests within the Roman Church.

It looks, walks, and quacks like a double standard.

[FormerLib]

But the reality is, we are living in a pathologically sexualized culture, and the predators -- predictably -- gravitate toward the prey.

Yes, the homosexuals infiltrated the ranks of the Catholic clergy because they knew this would give them access to the young. They did "gravitate toward the prey" as you stated. Allowing them to marry would not have changed this.

However, had married men been allowed to serve as parish priests, perhaps the Church would have been more willing to weed out those who ultimately preyed upon the children.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

"Are you alleging that Roman Catholic men who to not take the vow are ever ordained?"

Why would I allege a fact? There are 80 to 120 men who have been ordained under the Pastoral Provision. They are all married. They did not take a vow or celibacy. I have mentioned this fact before.

"They you should be able to name some of the non-celibate priests who were ordained over the past year."

I can name two who were ordained in the last two or four weeks or so who were married men: Al Kimel and Dwight Longnecker. Haven't you been reading the threads about them being ordained? I mean, seriously, how could you not know about this and still be pontificating about this issue?
http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/12/07/al-kimmel-gets-ordained/

"Again with the semantics! That is NOT what we have been discussing. We have been discussing married men becoming priest which is most certainly allowed in the Orthodox Church and ALL of the Churchs that swear fealty to the Pope except the Roman Church (based only upon your previous statements)."

Right, but it is the same issue. No Church, under the proper understanding of that word, has priests marry AFTER ordination. Correct? Correct. We do the same thing.

"Poppycock! Such priests exist in all areas of Orthodoxy."

You're missing the point. First, these were men who WANTED TO MARRY, but couldn't find wives. A whole new class of celibate priests might appear in Orthodoxy if this continues. Or at least that's what the head of some Gree Orthodox priests' association said. I was incorrect about it being a bishop. It was a priest who said it.

"Those who take monastic vows can become bishops. That a bishop would suggest that something which is already common place might happen soon proves the statement is pure Bravo Sierra."

Again, you are missing the point. Traditionally, men in the East who didn't marry and were ordained WANTED IT THAT WAY AND WANTED TO BE MONKS. Today that is changing. There are seminarians who can't find wives. They want them, but can't find them. What part of that do you not understand? Look here as a starting point:

Celibacy is un-Orthodox

“God save the Orthodox Church from such a terrible fate,” said Father Efstathios Kollas, director of the Pan-Hellenic Union of Priests, in response to the increase of celibate priests and near-disappearance of married priests in the Greek Orthodox tradition. Kollas worries in a recent article in the Athenian-English newspaper Kathimerini that the Orthodox will soon follow the path of the “Catholic heresy” in which almost all priests are celibate.

Kollas thinks it might be a question of style. According to him, the Orthodox dress code of long black robes, tall hats and overgrown beards is ruining their marriage prospects. “If the robes create an obstacle for finding a wife — and you know they do — then the church’s leadership must do something to modernize our appearance.”

The decline of a married clergy is not a new problem for the Orthodox. “Women have always been hesitant about marrying priests …. Women who marry priests are usually older women, those who are afraid of being left on the shelf,” Kollas said.

If Father Kollas’ image of women is representative, ML suspects it may not be the beards that are keeping them away.
Site: http://www.rpinet.com/ml/2704wt.html

Ditto:
http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/0002/ZE000228.html#item5

"Again the semantic nonsense! You ARE different because you do not allow married men from the Roman Church to become priests!"

We do have married priests -- but not many. The Church chooses to ordain, generally, only unmarried men who have taken a vow of celibacy. The men choose the vow freely. They are not forced to take it. The Church is not forced to ordain them either.

"Only those converting from other churches and have already been ordained become married priests within the Roman Church."

Incorrect. No one who is ordained in the Catholic Church has ever been ordained before by anyone, anywhere, ever. What they went through was either not a valid ordination, and therefore they must be ordained in the Catholic church, or they were validly ordained in Church possessing valid sacraments and therefore require no ordination at the hands of a Catholic bishop, but only incardination by him.

There examples of both online. Here is a man who was ordained by the Catholic Church (Roman Rite). He is married and has children. You can see them all in the photo he took with the ordaining bishop after the ceremony last week: http://bp1.blogger.com/_5BV_YADVD7o/RYaVVnq_S_I/AAAAAAAAACg/q1QacBOFlds/s1600-h/family+ordination.jpg

Here is his blog about his ordination last week: http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2006/12/ordination-photographs.html

Here is a validly ordained Orthodox priest who became a Catholic priest (i.e. he was received into the Church and incardinated in Denver). He says both the Roman Rite and the Byszantine Rite: http://www.stelizofhungary.org/cm_page.html

"It looks, walks, and quacks like a double standard."

Maybe you should be talking about ducks somewhere else since you don't know what you're talking about here?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

"However, had married men been allowed to serve as parish priests, perhaps the Church would have been more willing to weed out those who ultimately preyed upon the children."

The one has nothing to do with the other. If it did, then the Anglicans would have had no ephebophilia problem either. That did occur to you right? Anglican "priests" are married. Yet there were plenty of sexually abuse AND MARRIED ministers among them.

[Zemo]

The instances of sexual predators in the Latin Catholic rite are at epidemic levels. I see no such problem in the Eastern Catholic rite side. I am not talking about a case here or there but as a % of the population.

Also, I like the idea that one is able to talk to a married couple where the husband is a priest who may have the same problems a married lay couple may have. And I like the idea that there is also examples of men and women who set themselves apart and totally devote themselves to the Lord as well and serve the community. It is a whole package deal. Maybe married clergy in the Latin rite will reduce cases of divorce?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

"The instances of sexual predators in the Latin Catholic rite are at epidemic levels."

Oh, please! 2 to 4 percent, depending on diocese, is not an epidemic.

"I see no such problem in the Eastern Catholic rite side. I am not talking about a case here or there but as a % of the population."

I have no idea what the rate is among Eastern Catholic priests. Is it radically different among UNMARRIED Eastern priests than among MARRIED priests? I have no idea.

"Also, I like the idea that one is able to talk to a married couple where the husband is a priest who may have the same problems a married lay couple may have. And I like the idea that there is also examples of men and women who set themselves apart and totally devote themselves to the Lord as well and serve the community. It is a whole package deal. Maybe married clergy in the Latin rite will reduce cases of divorce?"

No. We used to have almost no divorces just a few generations ago -- when we had a rather strongly chaste and celibate priesthood.