Posted on 01/30/2011 2:01:52 PM PST by Alex Murphy
The London Catholic Herald blogger Anna Arco blogs the news that Pope Benedict XVI “called for the Church to investigate priestly celibacy”, in 1970 when he was a young priest.
She notes a German newspaper report that he signed a petition that suggested the Church re-examine the obligation of priestly celibacy.
The memorandum was drawn up in the face of a shortage of priests and other signatories included Karl Rahner and the future cardinals Karl Lehmann and Walter Kasper.
If there weren’t enough priests, the document said, then the “Church quite simply has a responsibility to take up certain modifications”.
The blog points out that the document’s release coincides with a renewed debate on priestly celibacy after prominent German politicians called for the Church to change the teaching on priestly celibacy in the face of a serious lack of priests.
Very true... The Catholic dioceses that have accepted married clergy converts as priests have to make great efforts to ensure that they are in positions where they can earn enough to support their families. This would be impossible if a larger percentage of priests were married.
Likewise, I'm not sure what the particular arrangements are for married permanent deacons, but I do know that many of them have 'day jobs.'
Control over what?
Besides the gay priests do not want married men and their wives snooping around.
I guess they're not particularly thrilled about the fervent young (heterosexual) priests coming out of seminaries... or those pesky heterosexual lay staff members either.
(By the way... I'm hoping you were kidding)
A married clergy would be a “profession,” in the narrow, bourgeoisie sense of the word, rather than a calling. Even evangelicals understand the difference between a servant==which is the ministers they “call,” and an employee. A servant, they expect much more from. Hence if he has a wife, she, too, is expected to serve. Of course, wealthy congregation tend to think in terns more like an employer-employee relationship, like between a public school board and a superintendent.
Paul also goes on to say that if anyone can’t abstain, then they should marry. Nowhere, does Paul say that one can’t be the leader of a church if they are married.
Peter was married, and the Catholic Church says that he was the first Pope. If I’m not mistaken, weren’t the Catholic Priests married in the early beginnings of the Catholic Church? There was a reason why they were forbidden to marry, and it seems like it had to with money. When the priest and his wife divorced, the church was having to pay her divorce settlement, and/or alimony.
Incorrect. There are numerous verses in Scripture, which you apparently have never had read to you, in which celibacy is praised. The burden to disprove your incorrect assertion:
I don’t see anything in scripture that says a priest/rabbi/leader of the church should be celibate.
doesn't lie with me. That burden, along with the burden to improve your comprehension, lies with you. I've posted the Scriptural references numerous times in the past, so I have no aversion to doing it again. You however, need to admit that you really don't know what you're talking about.
Doesn’t the Catholic Church look at Peter as the head of the church
No. The Church recognizes that Christ is the head of the Church. He is the bridegroom and the Church is His bride. The Church acknowledges that St. Peter was the rock that Christ built His Church upon and that St. Peter was the first Pope.
He was married because the bible says,
I'm well aware that by mentioning his mother-in-law, Scripture implies that St. Peter was at one time married. Are you aware that St. Peter's wife is never mentioned in Scripture?
If I “glossed over 1 Corinthians”, as you say, then please post the scripture that says Priests/Rabbis/Church Leaders are to remain celibate.
I'll be happy to do that at the end of my post when I provide the litany of Scripture verses which you conveniently have chosen to ignore. However, I want you to admit that in addition to your poor comprehension of Scripture, that a married Priest cannot fully devote himself to both the service of God as well as the care of his family.
If the Catholic Church doesn’t forbid marriage, then are you saying that a Catholic Priest would be allowed to marry, and continue to carry out his duties as Priest?
No I'm not. Are you saying that any man has a right to be ordained to the Priesthood? Number one, 21 of the 22 Churches sui juris which comprise the Catholic Church, ordain, as a norm married men. However, there has never been a time when, once ordained, a single Priest could then lawfully marry and remain in the clerical state. Same as in the Greek Orthodox Church, a denomination whose discipline you apparently have no disagreement with.
In 1 Timothy 3:2, it states...”Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.”
Incorrect. You've quoted 1 Timothy 3:12 not 1 Timothy 3:2. By the way, the Catholic Church has married deacons. The topic at hand, however, is the Priesthood not the Diaconate.
Tertullian is an early church father, and he was married.
Why would you be referencing Tertullian since the basis of your argument has been what you believe is and isn't contained in Scripture? I'm quite certain that if you were actually familiar with the body of his work you wouldn't have mentioned him because he wrote the following:
"Peter alone [among the Apostles] do I find married, and through mention of his mother-in-law. I presume he was a monogamist; for the Church, built upon him, would for the future appoint to every degree of orders none but monogamists. As for the rest, since I do not find them married, I must presume they were either eunuchs or continent." De monogamia 8,4 post AD 213
Will you be posting quotes from other Fathers of the Church which support the discipline of celibacy? I highly doubt it.
The following is provided for your much needed edification:
"Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take it let him take it." Matthew 19:11-12
"Then Peter answering said to Him: Behold we have left all things and have followed Thee: what therefore shall we have? And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you that you, who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of His majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath left house or brethren or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold and shall possess life everlasting. And many that are first shall be last: and the last shall be first. " Matthew 19:27-30 (emphasis added)
"Then Peter said: Behold we have left all things and have followed Thee. Who said to them: Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left home or parents or brethren or wife or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive much more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." Luke 18:28-30 (emphasis added)
"But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I." 1 Corinthians 7:8
"But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord: how he may please God. But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the vidgin thinketh on the things of the Lord: that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world: how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment." 1 Corinthians 7:32-35 (emphasis added)
"Labour as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No man, being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular businesses: that he may please Him to whom he hath engaged himself." 2 Timothy 2:3-4
"And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things: in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16
Other than your self proclaimed "commonsense", what do you base that assertion on?
Based on what source? According to Clement of Alexandria, tradition holds that St. Peter's wife was martyred prior to his crucifixion.
Compared to most Catholic Priests, Greek Orthodox Priests are very well compensated.
Some were but they were expected, with the consent of their spouse, to be continent following ordination.
There was a reason why they were forbidden to marry, and it seems like it had to with money.
An urban legend perpetuated by the ignorant.
If you possess a sincere desire to be educated on the topic I suggest you read the following:
Unfortunately, I think you're very content to remain in your current state.
Priests are not as well compensated as Methodist ministers. Their only real economic advantage is that they don’t have wife and kids to provide for.
Based on Eusebius who reports that Peter's wife was martyred in Rome with Peter shortly before Peter's crucifiction. So, Clement appears to reporting the same thing.
You originally mentioned the Greeks, not the Methodists.
Therefore, based on sources outside of Scripture, Peter became a widower before his death.
Or you could just post the answer for those of us who don’t care enough to buy a book but do care enough to perpetrate the urban legend.
There are certainly some of us out here.
By a day, or perhaps even hours. But the original point at issue stands, that Peter was married thoughout his ministry all the up until the time he and wife were martyred. Jesus didn’t seem to have a problem with his priests/Apostles being married.
From:The Life of Fr. De Smet, Apostle of the Rockies:
Pg 176 - How is the phenomenal success of these missions to be explained? Many of the Indians possessed admirable natural virtues; they but needed to know Christianity to embrace it. Even the most degraded had preserved a high ideal of the greatness of the power of God. Blasphemy was unknown among them: not presuming to address the “Great Spirit,” they entreated their manitous to intercede for them. Superstition if you will, but beneath it was a religious sentiment which the missionary had only to enlighten and direct. None held back through false pride or prejudice. Even the Sioux, the proudest of the Western tribes, compared themselves to children bereft of a father’s guiding hand, and to the ignorant animals of the prairie, and with touching humility begged the missionary to “take pity on them.”
Such elevated, upright souls could, moreover, appreciate the chastity of the Catholic priesthood. With rare discernment, the Indian understood that, belonging as he does to all men, a priest cannot give himself to one person, and not for an instant did they hesitate to choose the Black Robe, who had consecrated his life to them, rather than the minister in lay dress, installed in a comfortable home with wife and children, devoted to the interests of his family, giving only the time that remained to distributing Bibles”.
Pg 52 - The Indians, meanwhile, were not overlooked. Dispossessed of their lands and driven west by the whites, they now found refuge and support in the Catholic Church. A considerable number of them, whose fathers had been instructed and baptized by the Jesuits, were well disposed toward Catholicity. Protestant ministers made repeated attempts to gain their confidence, but were always coldly received." "What had they to do," asked the Indians, "with married preachers, men who wore no crucifix, and said no rosary? They wanted only the Black Robes to teach them how to serve God. They even went so far as to appeal to the President of the United States, asking that the married ministers might be recalled and Catholic priests sent in their place."
Pg 117 - I was given the place of honor in the chief's tent, who, surrounded by forty of his braves, addressed me in the following words: 'Black Robe, this is the happiest day of our lives, for to-day, for the first time, we see in our midst a man who is near to the Great Spirit. These are the principal warriors of my tribe. I have invited them to the feast I have prepared for you, that they may never forget the great day.""'
It seems strange that with the savages the fact of being a Catholic priest merited a triumphal reception for the lowly missionary, while in other times, and to men proud of their civilization, he would have been the object of suspicion. During the repast the great chief showered attentions on his guest, even to giving him a mouthful of his own food to chew, a refined usage among his tribe.
At night, after the missionary had retired and was about to fall asleep, he saw the chief who had received him with so much honor, enter his tent. Brandishing a knife that gleamed in the light of the torch, he said: "Black Robe, are you afraid?" The missionary, taking the chief's hand, placed it on his breast and replied: "See if my heart beats more rapidly than usual! Why should I be afraid? You have fed me with your own hands, and I am as safe in your tent as I would be in my father's house." Flattered by this reply, the Blackfoot renewed his professions of friendship; he had wished only to test the confidence of his guest.
Pg 86 - Protestant ministers tried to compete with the Catholic priests; but between a salaried official who distributed tracts to inquisitive members of the tribe, and the missionary, devoted body and soul to their interests, the Indians did not hesitate to make a choice." They refused the most alluring offers from Protestants and came from all directions to ask for a Black Robe to show them the way to heaven.
"After five years' residence with the Otoes, the Protestant minister has not yet baptized one person, and the greater part of the Protestant missionaries who overrun the Indian Territory make no better showing." (Letter of Father De Smet to Father Verhaegen, June, 1838.)
Fortunately the RCC is a monarchical institution that does not tolerate DIMocracy in the pews.
A statement one could make about every religious cult that ever existed.
The Indian cultures were “hero” cultures. No herediary leadership, or rare. The chiefs were simply the biggest, baddest, most eloquent, most religious among them.
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.