Posted on 01/26/2005 8:45:26 AM PST by tvn
TONY EASTLEY: With their numbers in radical decline, Australia's Catholic Priests are urging the Vatican to overturn its ban on married clergy. The National Council of Priests has written to Rome urging it to re-consider the rules on celibacy. There's concern that sex and marriage have become an obstacle to recruitment.
Priests argue that their dwindling ranks could be boosted if they were allowed to marry and have families. Presently, only Priests who convert to Catholicism from other churches are allowed to be married.
The parish priest of Melbourne St Simon's Church, Father Martin Dixon, sits on the executive committee of the National Council of Priests.
AM's Nick Grimm spoke to Father Dixon.
MARTIN DIXON: Well, I think the issue of married Priests can be an issue that should be looked at and can be looked at. Marriage is not a bar to Priesthood, there are a large number of married men who are Priests in Australia already.
Melbourne has two of them here already, so it is happening, and I suppose we're saying, why just restrict it to particularly men who are Anglican Priests who have now become Catholics? It should be open to all men.
NICK GRIMM: The vow of celibacy has long been one of the defining features of the Catholic Priesthood though, hasn't it?
MARTIN DIXON: It has been, but it hasn't been for the whole history of the church. Half the history of the church has been married clergy, and the clergy in the beginning were married. Peter had his wife – the first Apostle. So, it's never been a restrictor for a long time within the church.
NICK GRIMM: So you would argue that this is a tradition which shouldn't be considered a sacred tradition?
MARTIN DIXON: No, I think it's one of the traditions we have to look at in the light of the present situation of the world we live in. It's not an unchangeable thing. The practice has been shown now that we can ordain married men. It therefore is not unchangeable.
NICK GRIMM: It is argued at times, isn't it, that there's a view that Priests can't really minister effectively if they live a life which is still quite remote from the everyday experience of many people?
MARTIN DIXON: If you live in the Parish and you're working among the people, you're not remote. You know the feelings, you know the pains, and you know the joys of it. You don't have to be married to know what it's like.
TONY EASTLEY: The parish priest of Melbourne St Simon's Church, Father Martin Dixon, speaking with AM's Nick Grimm.
"It wasn't ALL the medias fault for the church's black eye. They didn't make it up. The "scandal" was there without the media's help, they just exposed it"
I have read the big cover up is in the Jewish community. No one can or will expose that. And other churchs have problems with their married ministers. Yet this is no big deal to the media. Yes, it happened in the church, yet it is happening everywhere. The media hates the Catholic Church on the same level it hates Bush and Republicans. And no one hates the Catholic Church more than ex-Catholics.
Really? Show me a study that links pedophelia to a lack of sex and I'll refute its legitimacy. I was a virgin for 22 years until I met my wife and not once did I ever have such an urge. These men had different issues than celibacy. Should we let them go and molest boys as laity instead of letting them "burn with passion?" I think not.
The Apostles taught that if a person wanted to devote their whole live to service then it was good for them not to marry, but not a requirement. Be fruitful and multiply was also directed at those who populated this earth in the beginning. It was probably a pretty good suggestion don't ya thing? Doesn't mean that was a direct order to every person on the planet for all time.
A grown man sodomizing an underage boy is morally equivalent to two adults divorcing?
Bumpkin.
That was just dumb. You really think I'm saying they should go ahead and molest boys? I'm saying the option to get married may have helped. How many of those 22 years were as a child and teenager. We're talking about men in their 40's 50's and up.
I thought the catholic church banned marriage in the 1200s (approx.) to keep the assets of the church from being diluted by offspring of priests. It's all about money folks. Personally I'm not a Catholic anymore since they wouldn't annul my marriage unless I gave them $500.
Strange that the Church allowed priests to marry for most of its history, then. I guess all priests in the Church before the vocation became celibate are burning in hell?
The skirt chasers were seen by several people having "dates". The one seen by parents with the senior girl was "replaced" in the high school by another priest. Then he was shipped off to somewhere "new". Which was a typical handling tactic for disfunctional priests. Send them somewhere else. The problem at times was that our high school was the "somewhere else".
Several of us learned not to go into the rectory when just certain priests were there. But there was one guy that liked meeting with them. And I did once open the wrong door one time in the rectory. I never went back into that building again. Creepy.
I doubt many of the vast majority of "regular" priests had a clue about any of these kinds of things going on. Some of them were saints as far as I was concerned and some of these things would have been foreign to them. I don't think they had the "radar" needed to see some of the goings on.
"Control was the problem, was it not? The priests that have caused the scandal obviously burned with passion and didn't control it".
These priest were homosexuals. Marriage would not have helped. If we are going to expose sexual scandals then I suggest he start with the public schools. The Catholic Church scandal pales in comparison to the sexuals scandals that happen between teacher and student in public scholl.
Not true. The Church is quietly lifting laicizations on a few men whose wives have died so that they can rejoin the priesthood. It takes a couple of years, but I know of one in the next diocese over. They're all older guys.
Only if they are defrocked by Rome - not if they renounce their vows themselves. In that case, they may be allowed to resume their priestly role, at the discretion of the Bishop.
My family's parish in New York was the domain of just such a 'father' - in both senses of the word (he was a widower).
If any Christian demonmination had a bunch of children filing law suits against several different priests for molestation the media would jump on that just as much as they would jump on the Catholics. But blaming the media as if the church wasn't really at fault is wrong. Christians are supposed to set the example. And when they don't they shouldn't blame others for exposing it. They should stop molesting kids. Making excuses and passing blame isn't the answer.
But maybe you're right...maybe the jooooooooos are really the bad guys. good grief.
Development of the Church's theology has always been reactionary in nature, whether it is financial scandals or heresy.
Just because the financial scandal was a catalyst does not mean that celibacy was "invented" or that it was not a good thing to do.
Jesus never "suggests" that anyone be celibate. Paul does.
All Jesus says about celibacy is "Let him accept it who can."
Good point. Thank you for the clarification :-)
Oh there ya go. Find someone else that is worse and then say it's okay for the church because they did it worser. I'm not as bad as they are. This is what 5 year olds do. Stop trying to defend and excuse the indefensible
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.