Posted on 07/09/2011 11:27:26 AM PDT by armydoc
“as far as waiting for a man to “act out”, by then that man will already be a priest, inside the system, and destroying young souls.”
Pre-admission screening and a teaspoon of vigilance in the seminaries should head that off at the pass.
Labor shortage is short and easy to say and applies, and I am not a Catholic.
What are the numbers for the great growth in Priest applications? You have said it a couple of times as though the problem is over and everything will be rosy from now on, but I am curious what the actual numbers are, how many slots need to be filled, and how are the applicants being tested and vetted?
By the way shouldn’t you ping that poster if you have criticism of his post 64
Which is what I said, be very, very strict, even using instinct and gut feeling, which of course will eliminate a huge portion of the applicants, and you have to get the existing leadership and screeners to go along with those strict standards.
They should be allowed to marry.
Who? Gay priests?
Okay, let me spell it out for you. Heterosexual male priests should be allowed to marry heterosexual women. A homosexual priest is less likely to show up on the radar.
You might want to pay some more attention to what is going on. The vast majority of priestly straying is homosexual; what in the world do you mean “a homosexual priest is less likely to show up on the radar”?
Unless you mean that gay priests should be allowed to ‘marry’, your statement makes no sense at all. And, if you understand the Church at all, your statement makes no sense at all either way.
Gay men are less likely to go into the priesthood if being married to a woman is part of being a priest. Gay men are less likely to marry women period.
This is why I say, allow men going into the priesthood to marry women before they become priests.
Umm, are you advocating enforced matrimony for the priesthood? I think that Jesus would have some problems with your statement, as would 2000 years of the Church.
Matthew 19:12
For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
St. Paul would have problems with it, too.
1 Corinthians 7:7-8
I would that all men were even as myself; but every one hath his proper gift from God .... But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, it is good for them if they so continue, even as I.
1 Corinthians 7:32-35
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 virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this 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.
I think that the declaration of Jesus and the teachings of Paul gainsay your statements.
St. Paul asked, “...how can any man who does not understand how to manage his own family have responsibility for the church of God?”
The Church was a thousand years old before it definitively took a stand in favor of celibacy in the 12th century at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139, when a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry. In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the tradition of celibacy. So, this is not just my opinion, it's history.
St. Paul asked, “...how can any man who does not understand how to manage his own family have responsibility for the church of God?”
The Church was a thousand years old before it definitively took a stand in favor of celibacy in the 12th century at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139, when a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry. In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the tradition of celibacy. So, this is not just my opinion, it's history.
Methinks your understanding of Church history has a few gaps in it. I notice that you simply dismissed the words of Jesus and Paul without comment. Well, let us see what the Fathers and the Councils of the Church said.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/celibacy.html#The Early Church and Celibacy is a fount of knowledge. I'd suggest that you might like to read it. I will post some excerpts.
He goes into Scriptural references in some depth. But the Bible speaks for itself to this, and if you will not accept my quotes, you might not accept his either. So on to the Church:
1 Tim. 3:1-5
1 The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. 2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; 5 for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's church
Here is St. Ambrose’ take on this passage:
61. And so the Apostle has given a pattern, saying that a bishop must be blameless, (1 Tim. iii.2) and in another place: “A bishop must be without offence, as a steward of God, not proud, not soon angry, not given to wine, not a striker, not greedy of filthy lucre.”(Tit. i. 7). For how can the compassion of a dispenser of alms and the avarice of a covetous man agree together? We see here that according to St. Ambrose, even in order to preserve his baptismal grace he must be chaste, which is abstinence from sex. He has already had sex before his ordination, in order to produce children, no doubt. Those who have already had sex, who already had children, as of the time of Paul’s writing, are allowed in the clergy. However, that sex is in the past, not going forward. That is Ambrose’ understanding. If they have sex after the call, they will not preserve the baptismal grace, and is a renunciation of that continence that they are called to. Even if they are married.
St. Jerome takes a look at this passage as well:
For he does not say: Let a bishop be chosen who marries one wife and begets children; but who marries one wife, and (1 Tim. iii. 2, 4; Tit. i. 6) has his children in subjection and well disciplined. You surely admit that he is no bishop who during his episcopate begets children. The reverse is the case—if he be discovered, he will not be bound by the ordinary obligations of a husband, but will be condemned as an adulterer. Either permit Sacerdotes: that is, bishops. priests to perform the work of marriage with the result that virginity and marriage are on a par: or if it is unlawful for priests to touch their wives, they are so far holy in that they imitate virgin chastity. But something more follows. A layman, or any believer, cannot pray unless he abstain from sexual intercourse. Now a priest must always offer sacrifices for the people: he must therefore always pray. And if he must always pray, he must always be released from the duties of marriage. [8]
We can see how Jerome interprets 1 Tim 3 & Titus 1 as even his opponent must admit that the bishop, even if he is married, must not going forward, beget children. Thus, if he is to have sex, he is basically to be an adulterer, even though he is married. They must imitate virgins, even if they are not so. As noted earlier in the passage in 1 Corinthians one must set aside sex for prayer. Even for the married priest, it is a permanent set aside. He is relieved of his duties of marriage. Thus, even the married clergy are called to continence.
Ambrosiaster takes a look at the part which speaks of having children:
Deacons must not have married more than once. . .” (1 Tim 3:12-13) St. Paul comments now on what he had briefly said before with regard to the ordination of deacons. He shows that deacons must also be husbands of only wives, so that one may choose for the service of God those who did not go beyond the limits set by God. For man, God wanted only one woman with whom he would be blessed: no one, if he has a second wife, receives the blessing. If they have raised their children properly and taken good care of their households, I.e., of their slaves or servants, they will become worthy of the priesthood and have assurance in God’s presence; let them know that they will obtain what they ask if they abstain also from the use of marriage…
If the Apostle directs laymen to abstain temporarily from conjugal union in order to attend to prayer, how much more would it be fitting for deacons and priests, who must pray day and night for the people entrusted to them? Therefore they must be purer than the others, because they are God’s representatives. [9]
Ambrosiaster commenting on the same text writes that one can only be married once. If they have children they must be ‘raised properly.’ Most relevant to this study he writes they must abstain from the use of conjugal rights. Also, if they were already married, and their wife dies, his commitment to celibacy must be proved by not marrying again. Since the deacons and priests must pray day and night for their flock, they must be permanently continent This interpretation of 1 Tim. 3 among St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and Ambrosiaster, is that it was a call to continence, and did not give license to have sex and produce children. We will see this interpretation of 1 Tim. 3 validated not only by a Pope, but even of Eastern bishops who are venerated Church Fathers. And so on. There are a number of quotes on other Gospel and Pauline passages as well.
Now, the first council that reflects the celibacy/continency requirement for those priests who were married is found in the Council of Elvira in Spain, approximately 305 AD, canon 33:
It has seemed good absolutely to forbid the bishops, the priests and the deacons, I.e., all the clerics in the service of the ministry, to have sexual relations with their wives and procreate children; should anyone do so, let him be excluded from the honor of the clergy. [19]
19 bishops and 24 priests had attended this council from the Iberian peninsula. The Church historian Hefele suggests this Council was convened in approximately 305 AD. There is no new proclamation, or any long explanation of why this was. It is assuming that this is a longstanding practice: Even married priests are forbidden to have sex, and are required to have celibate lives. Any sexual relations excludes them from the clergy. There is no indication that anything here is new. There is also a similar canon in the Council of Arles in 314, canon 29, accepted by the bishops that represented Spain, Italy, Africa, Northern Europe. [20]
Council of Nicaea, 325 AD, 3rd canon:
The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion.[21]
We see in the great Ecumenical Council of Nicea, that no clergy at all can have anybody living with one who one might suspect they have sexual relations with. This shows suspicion towards any one who might have sex with the clergy. Thus, sexual activity is not allowed.
Council of Neocaesarea, 304-315 AD, says in canon I:
If a priest marries, he will be excluded from the ranks of the clergy; if he commits fornication or adultery, he will in addition be excommunicated and subject to penance.[22] This canon speaks of anybody who is already a priest, can not newly marry anybody. This is still even the practice of the Eastern Church, which says that any priest who is unmarried, after ordination can not marry.
The Council of Carthage, 390 AD, canon 3:
Epigonius, Bishop of the Royal Region of Bulla, says: The rule of continence and chastity had been discussed in a previous council. Let it now be taught with more emphasis what are the three ranks that, by virtue of their consecrations, are under the same obligation of chastity, I.e., the bishop the priest, and the deacons, and let them be instructed to keep their purity.
It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep
The bishops declared unanimously: It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.[23]
So you see, that the Church has always had close watch on these matters, right from the examples and teachings of Jesus and Paul. And let's face it: we have no knowledge of Peter's wife. A tradition says that she died before Jesus called him. We have no knowledge of any of the other Apostles' married status. Even St. Augustine lived in continence with his wife, another early Church practice, for those married clergy.
Mark,
With all due respect my friend. Christ chose a married man to be the rock.
There were a lot of Puerto Ricans I served with in the Army. You should let them know how you feel about Catholics. They could give you some free dental work.
We don't know that. Scripture is very silent on Peter's wife's status, her life or even her name. One tradition has her dead before Jesus called Peter, making him a widower. His mother in law was living in Peter's house; that's the most that we can rely on.
God bless you Mark. Have a great weekend. I respectfully disagree.
In the 1st century Jewish culture it was normal to be married and to have children, in fact, Rabbinical law required that Rabbis be married back then.
Very good and thanks for the discussion. God bless us all.
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.