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.
Actually those are epidemic numbers.
We used to have almost no divorces just a few generations ago -- when we had a rather strongly chaste and celibate priesthood.
Just as society changed that prompted the papal decree enforcing celibate clergy in the Middle Ages when once married clergy were allowed in Western Europe so maybe societal changes may need the Catholic Church to go really old school again and allow married clergy?
In any case I don't understand your hostile - almost panicked like tone.
While currently married clergy are restricted in the Latin church it would not be an apostasy or heresy if the Eastern Catholic style of married clergy rules were adopted by Western clergy. Am I right on that?
You wrote:
"Actually those are epidemic numbers."
Okay. And you have a ready source for that? I would like to see it just to see what an authority considers to be the differences between epidemic and pandemic.
"Just as society changed that prompted the papal decree enforcing celibate clergy in the Middle Ages when once married clergy were allowed in Western Europe so maybe societal changes may need the Catholic Church to go really old school again and allow married clergy?"
Nope. It also wouldn't be old school either. There have always been unmarried clergy. Will the Orthodox go "old school" and have married bishops? The Apostles were married as far as we can tell. They were really the first bishops. Will you go "old school"? Nope. You won't either. Deaconesses? Maybe only a little bit, right?
"In any case I don't understand your hostile - almost panicked like tone."
What? I am not hostile, nor panicked nor even almost panicked. I don't understand your deliberate ignorance and belligerence against the Catholic faith.
"While currently married clergy are restricted in the Latin church it would not be an apostasy or heresy if the Eastern Catholic style of married clergy rules were adopted by Western clergy. Am I right on that?"
No more than it would be for the Eastern Churches to ordain unmarried (celibate) men, no. You do it. We do it. We do it more often than you, but we both ordain unmarried men who never marry after ordination. It's simply no big deal.
For example: The total mortality of the 1918 influenza epidemic was 0.5 percent of the population.
So if you claim 2%-4% of Catholic clergy are sexual predators then those are epidemic numbers.
Just as I expected, that doesn't work. Only .5% died. That wasn't the epidemic. The number of infected was.
The article says: "In 1918, when the world population was 1.8 billion, an influenza epidemic incapacitated 1 billion and killed 20 million, all within the space of 8 weeks."
See it? It was an epidemic not because of the numbers of dead in itself, but because 1 billion were sick and those who died all died in 8 weeks.
I still don't see any evidence that 2 to 4% is an epidemic. Also, I made the point about Anglicans. It must have been a good one since you guys won't touch it.
2%-4% of your Catholic Latin clergy are sexual predators and you don't see that as an epidemic (your figures by the way not mine)? If 2% of the population was infected with AIDS we would have a health disaster on our hands.
I can't exclude that possibility out of hand, but I'm not sure.
You could look at it in two ways: first, that if the pool of men available to be ordained were a lot larger (which it presumably would be if married mem could apply), then the Church wouldn't face the internal pressure to retain, shield, and try to salvage abusive priests simply because of a severe personnel shortage.
Second, you might imagine that if married men, fathers of children, were running the parishes, they would have less toleration for questionable clerics: they'd be more likely to take accusers seriously, and less likely to give their brother priest the benefit of the doubt.
Both of those suppositions are plausible.
On the other hand, abusers (even gay pedophiles) do marry and have kids, too. Recent revelations in the Protestant world have shown that married ministers can get into transgressive gay behavior on the side which goes on for years, decades. So if the pool of ordinandi were larger because of including married men, the number of potential abusers would be larger, too.
I also think that at the apex of the abuse (which would have been the 1970's), bishops were very much misled by the "therapeutic culture" to see acts of molestation as a matter of sickness rather than of crime or sin; it was thought that what Fr. Feely really needed was a semester at Therapyville and what the victim really needed was money for "counseling." The police, if they knew at all, were perfectly willing to go along with this approach. We all know better now.
Of course, the no-fault therapy approach conflicts with the age-old Catholic understanding of sin; but finding bishops who subscribe fully and wholeheartedly with he Catholic view of things has been an ongoing problem, too..
You wrote: "2%-4% of your Catholic Latin clergy are sexual predators and you don't see that as an epidemic (your figures by the way not mine)?"
What I see is that you can not substantiate what you claimed. I asked for evidence that 2 to 4% was an epidemic. You have given us nothing.
"If 2% of the population was infected with AIDS we would have a health disaster on our hands."
And so you conclude that that is an epidemic? Yeah, no evidence.
This is called self-evident proof.
You wrote: "This is called self-evident proof.
No, it's called "not being able to prove your point." You do this quite often. With a little effort that might change....but I doubt it.
That you don't like the semantics is your problem.
Zemo,
You wrote: "2%-4% of the Catholic Latin clergy by your estimation are child rapists and you don't call that an epidemic?"
You said it was an epidemic. I asked for proof it was. You provided none. Whether I think it is horrible or not (and I do think it horrible) does not make it an epidemic.
"That you don't like the semantics is your problem."
I like the truth. You like semantics. In fact you like relativism. Words have real meanings. Use them as they should be used. That's what people who believe in truth do. Try it.
You said it was an epidemic.
Damn right I did - what is it to you? Peachy keen?
You wrote: "Damn right I did - what is it to you? Peachy keen?"
I already said what it was. And I was right.
One thing about comparing hypothetical married Roman Catholic priests to married Protestant pedophiles, the screening process for becoming a priest is much more rigorous.
Allowing married men to serve as parish priests would help the Roman Church in a number of ways, the least of which would be a reduction in laypeople serving the Eucharist.
Yes, before 1139 the Latin Church ordained married men to the priesthood. However, these men were not permitted to have conjugal relations after ordination. This had been the constant practice and law of the Church since patristic times. It was probably the rule even from apostolic times, but because the Church was persecuted during the first three centuries of its existence, it did not write any laws down until the beginning of the fourth century. The problem, of course, was that many clerics ignored this requirement of perfect continence and continued to have relations with their wives after ordination. By the eleventh century, it became apparent to the popes, that clerical marriage could not coexist with this requirement of clerical continence.
The decision of the Eastern Churches in 690 to permit their married clergy to practice only periodic abstinence rather than perpetual abstinence was a significant deviation from the ancient practice of both East and West.
Whether or not it is sinful for clergy in the Eastern Churches to have relations with their wives is not the point. The Latin Church should not have to abandon its longer-standing tradition of clerical chastity just to conform with the Eastern Churches.
Finally, people today who want married priests would not want these men to have to observe any kind of continence, periodic or perpetual. Moreover, they want priests to be permitted to marry after ordination or even get divorced and remarry. Many of them want women to be ordained. They actually want the Church to adopt practices it has never had. They want to impose their own radical agenda on the Church.
I, for one, am glad that the Pope recently upheld the Church's ancient discipline of clerical celibacy.
Here's another way to look at it: the various dioceses diverge widely in the numbers of seminarians per 10,000 Catholics. The most successful Dioceses attract 2, 5, or 10 times as many seminarians than others, in proportion to their Catholic population. IIRC, there are even single parishes that have produced more seminarians than some whole dioceses.
Since they all have the same celibacy requirement, it looks like other factors are at work here. I daresay that the dioceses most successful in attracting ordinands, are the ones which demand, and model, a strongly articulated fidelity to the teachings of the Church, a serious, disciplined personal prayer life with reasobable asceticism, loyalty to the Pope, and a highly "defined" role for its priests (without the blurred lines of a laicized clergy and clericalized laity.)
Therfore, restoring a strong, clear-cut role for priests will both attract more chaste, celibate priests and reduce laypeople fluttering around the altar and handling the sacred vessels and the Blessed Sacrament.
At least two popes were born from such clerical families. Catholic after the fact revisionism.
Clerics were not permitted to have sex after ordination. The fact that some of them did and that two popes were supposedly born into clerical families does not mean that this behavior was licit. If you want a modern analogy, consider this: although the Church prohibits contraception, many Catholic couples use artificial birth control. However, this does not mean that the Church's law against contraception does not exist or that it should be abolished. It just means that there are many disobedient Catholics. Similarly, there were some unchaste, disobedient married clerics who continued to have conjugal relations after ordination even though this violated Church law.
After all, He really does proceed from the Father AND the Son.
What ecumenical council reached that decision?
Saying that is so does not make it so. If that was the case the Pope would not have allowed Eastern Catholics this ability.
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.