Posted on 06/26/2012 3:50:51 AM PDT by Cronos
I even have an Uncle in NJ and my hometown Priest both have grown children, 4 and 7 respectively, but they became Priests after their wives passed away. And even then it's difficult because of all of their church duties in addition to spending Holiday time with their family, etc. The hometown Priest spent Christmas with his family last year, and they brought someone else in to cover. I think that was fair as he hadn't spent actual Christmas day with his Children and Grandchildren in quite some time.
I'm not going to argue the whole “Priests should be allowed to marry!” now, but if some are, for whatever reason (used to be Episcopal) it makes you wonder what other tenets are “negotiable” in the long term, which makes me a little nervous, steadfastness in the face of change is what I like about the Catholic church, then again I can see why the Episcopal wanted to leave the liberalization of his church and he can't just not be married. But couldn't he be something other then a Priest? There are other ways to serve the church where you can still take part in the Mass.
It’s difficult for me to understand the general requirement that priests maintain *lifelong* celibacy.And now that there are married priests here (and elsewhere,I assume) that adds to the confusion,IMO.Fewer and fewer men are willing to go without the emotional and physical companionship of a woman,those desires being *completely* normal and,one could certainly say,God given.
There are married priests in the Eastern Catholic rites, just not usually found in the Latin rite. The following excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia may help:
“Celibacy is the renunciation of marriage implicitly or explicitly made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, by all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders in any of the higher grades. The character of this renunciation, as we shall see, is differently understood in the Eastern and in the Western Church. Speaking, for the moment, only of Western Christendom, the candidates for orders are solemnly warned by the bishop at the beginning of the ceremony regarding the gravity of the obligation which they are incurring. He tells them:
You ought anxiously to consider again and again what sort of a burden this is which you are taking upon you of your own accord. Up to this you are free. You may still, if you choose, turn to the aims and desires of the world (licet vobis pro artitrio ad caecularia vota transire). But if you receive this order (of the subdiaconate) it will no longer be lawful to turn back from your purpose. You will be required to continue in the service of God, and with His assistance to observe chastity and to be bound for ever in the ministrations of the Altar, to serve who is to reign.
By stepping forward despite this warning, when invited to do so, and by co-operating in the rest of the ordination service, the candidate is understood to bind himself equivalently by a vow of chastity. He is henceforth unable to contract a valid marriage, and any serious transgression in the matter of this vow is not only a grievous sin in itself but incurs the additional guilt of sacrilege.
Before turning to the history of this observance it will be convenient to deal in the first place with certain general principles involved. The law of celibacy has repeatedly been made the object of attack, especially of recent years, and it is important at the outset to correct certain prejudices thus created. Although we do not find in the New Testament any indication of celibacy being made compulsory either upon the Apostles or those whom they ordained, we have ample warrant in the language of Our Saviour, and of St. Paul for looking upon virginity as the higher call, and by inference, as the condition befitting those who are set apart for the work of the ministry. In Matthew 19:12, Christ clearly commends those who, “for the sake of the kingdom of God”, have held aloof from the married state, though He adds: “he who can accept it, let him accept it”. St. Paul is even more explicit:
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.
And further on:
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. (1 Corinthians 7:7-8 and 32-35)
Further, although we grant that the motive here appealed to is in some measure utilitarian, we shall probably be justified in saying that the principle which underlies the Church’s action in enforcing celibacy is not limited to this utilitarian aspect but goes even deeper. From the earliest period the Church was personified and conceived of by her disciples as the Virgin Bride and as the pure Body of Christ, or again as the Virgin Mother (parthenos meter), and it was plainly fitting that this virgin Church should be served by a virgin priesthood. Among Jews and pagans the priesthood was hereditary. Its functions and powers were transmitted by natural generation. But in the Church of Christ, as an antithesis to this, the priestly character was imparted by the Holy Ghost in the Divinely-instituted Sacrament of Orders. Virginity is consequently the special prerogative of the Christian priesthood. Virginity and marriage both holy, but in different ways. The conviction that virginity possesses a higher sanctity and clearer spiritual intuitions, seems to be an instinct planted deep in the heart of man. Even in the Jewish Dispensation where the priest begot children to whom his functions descended, it was nevertheless enjoined that he should observe continence during the period in which he served in the Temple. No doubt a mystical reason of this kind does not appeal to all, but such considerations have always held a prominent place in the thought of the Fathers of the Church; as is seen, for example, in the admonition very commonly addressed to subdeacons of the Middle Ages at the time of their ordination. “With regard to them it has pleased our fathers that they who handle the sacred mysteries should observe the law of continence, as it is written ‘be clean ye who handle the vessels of the Lord?’ “(Maskell, Monumenta Ritualia, II, 242).”
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm)
Celibacy for the priesthood is a discipline. I’d encourage you to read the linked article in it’s completion for more information. I hope that this helps.
The RCC should accept change. There’s nothing wrong with a man taking a wife and serving God at the same time. If anything it removes a sexual stumbling block from his life.
The main argument of the "priests should be married" liberals is that they want all the elderly hippie priests who left the ministry, got laicized and got married to be readmitted with full priestly faculties.
That can never happen and would be enormously damaging to any ecumenical discussions with the Orthodox if it did.
This is the opposite circumstance - these are married men becoming Catholic priests, which is the norm in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church.
No, it shouldn't. It has its commission, and that defines its discipline, not fashion.
There’s nothing wrong with a man taking a wife and serving God at the same time.
Until the point where he needs to put his family above his flock.
If anything it removes a sexual stumbling block from his life.
Married pastors violate their marriage vows quite often.
The so-called Roman Catholic Church accepted radical change as a result of Vatican II. As a matter of fact an entire new religion was created as a result of that confab.
The Novus Ordo (as in New (World) Order) is as different as the religion headed by all popes prior to Pope John as night is from day.
It wouldn’t surprise me if in the future married same sex priests would be found in the Novus Ordo. Of course confession and absolution would be out the door as sins committed would outweigh anything good that might be happening.
I understand the RCC wanting to encourage Priests to remain celibate but married men who wish to serve the Lord in this fashion should be allowed to.
“Married pastors violate their marriage vows quite often.”
That sounds more like an issue with the individual’s level of sanctification more than anything.
That's a pretty broad statement. What kind of change? Why? Change for change's sake? It's just a silly statement.
There's nothing wrong with a man taking a wife and serving God at the same time.
No one ever said there was. The Church's law regarding priestly celibacy is just that... a changeable law. Even the most right-wing Catholic recognizes that. However, it is a law that has proven to bear much fruit, and it would be unwise to change it based on the experiences of a few years, as compared to the many centuries of experience of fruitfulness. There are many sound and profound theological and practical reasons for it. Read the post just before yours.
If anything it removes a sexual stumbling block from his life.
One fact that people usually ignore when they talk about priestly celibacy is that everyone who is not married is required by Jesus Christ to be celibate. So it is not only priests, but also single people, widows, and widowers, too, who must be celibate. So if you're going to do away with priestly celibacy simply as a way to remove a "sexual stumbling block", then you're on very shaky ground, from a moral theology point of view.
Whether priestly celibacy should continue is a prudential decision of the Church, in the person of the Pope, whoever he may be at any given time in history. We, as Catholics, are part of a hierarchical Church, which means that some people get to make decisions and others must follow them. This is one of those decisions, and I'm comfortable with the fact that I have neither the right nor the responsibility to make that decision. I'll just follow it.
“So if you’re going to do away with priestly celibacy simply as a way to remove a “sexual stumbling block”, then you’re on very shaky ground, from a moral theology point of view.”
You are correct that every single unmarried individual should be celibate but that’s not what I’m talking about. No one is suggesting that a Priest sleep around with whomever. I’m talking specifically about the option to take a wife.
Regarding the “hierarchical Church,” why is it that Eastern RCC allows for married Priests? I’m not being snarky... I’m really just curious :)
I'm Catholic and I don't get it either...of course I don't get God punishing nuns who do his work with higher amount of cancer due to them never having kids...Oh that's right it was 7th century men who made these cathotalbinesque idiotic rules...
It’s good enough for defecting Episcopalians but not for the rest?
The Cardinals are on a very, very slippery slope with that pretzel logic. Ending celebacy for the rest would attract a class of more sexually well-adjusted people into the Priesthood, and perhaps end the Church’s long Jerry Sandusky nightmare.
Because if it’s so wrong and against Church teachings, why are they using it to recruit Episcopalians?
Did I just call the Holy Father a hypocrite there??
Are you aware that priests were allowed to be married up until the 8th century when the "steadfast" church changed it's rules about it? Read the Bible, especially 1 Corinthians 7:2, 1 Corinthians 9:5 and 1 Timothy 3:1.
Apparently, one has to be an Episcopal priest.
Strange logic.
Do you self-identify as Roman Catholic, as opposed to Catholic?
For Catholics the concept of married priests is not strange or new. For Roman Catholics perhaps it is strange or new.
We are always Catholic first - Roman Catholic is secondary.
Celibate priests is not dogma and it never has been.
I can’t speak for the Eastern Catholic churches, but in Orthodoxy, the rule of thumb is that a married man can receive ordination, but an ordained man cannot get married. For this reason, MANY Orthodox seminarians delay their ordinations until they find wives.
Celibacy amongst the general priesthood in the Latin Rite church has not always been a strictly enforced norm. I’m no expert on Roman Catholicism, but I THINK it’s only been an absolute requirement since the 11th century.
In Orthodoxy, married priests are not eligible for elevation to the Episcopacy (they can’t be bishops).
“Did I just call the Holy Father a hypocrite there??”
And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
~Matthew 23:9
Guess the RCC just ignored that verse.
21 of the 22 Churches sui juris which comprise the Catholic Church ordain, as a norm, married men. All 21 have a shortage of Priests. The argument that ordaining married men en masse in the Latin Rite is the panacea to the shortage has been proven to be, at best, a specious one.
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.