Posted on 06/28/2003 5:12:23 PM PDT by MVV
UPDATED: 4:42 p.m. EDT June 28, 2003
That's the word from the Vatican.
The celibacy rule was reaffirmed in a wide-ranging document issued Saturday.
It acknowledges that fewer and fewer men are signing up for the priesthood. But it says letting priests marry isn't the answer.
Instead, it says current priests should dedicate themselves to attracting more candidates by better explaining the priesthood to lay Catholics, and by encouraging children to consider religious vocations.
The document touched on a host of other issues, including a call for Europe to be more welcoming to immigrants.
It also called for the "full participation" of women in the life of the church. But the Vatican says that doesn't mean as priests, since only men can be ordained.
Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Wow, all your ideas sound like a lot of work. And as you've stated, if something is difficult, these priests shouldn't be 'forced' to do it.
(Everyone knows that chastity and celibacy are hard, that is not a good reason to abandon them.)
You're right. A good reason to abandon the requirement is because (1) it's unbiblical; and (2) it was not required of clergy in the early Church.If you think so highly of both scripture and tradition, then why do you support this abnormal, man-made rule?
Let me put up some scenarios, and you tell me who you'd rather have assisting the laity.
An elderly woman's spouse of 55 years dies. Would you rather have a 45 year old priest with a background in counseling as a career prior to his much awaited entry into the priesthood, or a 25 year old priest who majored in philosophy with a minor in comparative religions speak to her at the hospital?
Now replace the widow with an 8 year old lying in the hospital, dying of leukemia. Who is better as a comfort?
A couple, married for 20 years, has an intractable problem with money, communication and the care of a down's syndrome child. Which clerical example is better?
You could do so much better for your laity than what you have offered. For years, you've ordained too many of the worst sorts of immature men - men who couldn't balance a checkbook, men who couldn't understand the vicissitudes of family life, men who had no frame of reference to what life was like for the common man. Some stayed in the parishes their entire lives, and some advanced, ingraining into the institution those same flaws of character born of inexperience and an attitude of neglect.
you could give me a roomful of the most brilliant theological scholars the world has ever known, and a roomful of men who experienced life, pain, remorse, redemption, and commonplace events, and given my choice to serve as parish priests, I'd pick the normal men over the theologians any day.
So, while people in the church (including bishops and popes) can make mistakes, we can put our trust in the Catholic Church because Jesus (who was perfect) did not make a mistake when he said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church.
BTW, I would prefer a priest who actually knew the first thing about religion and God's love than one whose expertise was Freudian analysis and grief counseling. Good grief!
Don't you see the inherent value of having mature people who relate to the laity on their everyday level and understand their lives making a conscious adult choice to enter the clergy?
That 85 year old widow doesn't need or want a baby academic who got an A on his paper on transubstantiation - she needs someone of faith who understands her, knows she is going through pain, and can relate to that pain and give comfort. The child dying of leukemia doesn't need someone who can give a history on patristics - he needs to know that God loves him and embraces him. That couple in crisis doesn't need someone whose entire experience in marital counseling came from a book taught by another unmarried man - they need to have a conversation who understands how hard married life is.
Um, that is typically what her children would do. Priests are a bit more than grief counselors, and if you think priests can't understand pain and suffering . . . you're just way out in wackoland buddy. I don't know what else to say!
Some priests arrive at their vocation sooner, others later. No big deal.
That you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to pastoral practice.
You'll know better when you get a little older.
You're a perfect example of why the Catholic Church shouldn't be ordaining men your age.
Well, Mikey, you don't like it? Neither did the Church, which stopped that stuff as soon as She could.
Since it is perfectly obvious that you are not a Catholic regardless of your baptism, why don't you buzz off?
Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and praying to saints which were wholly unknown in the first 300, 400, or 500 years of the Church, depending upon which tradition you're talking about.
The Church will declare certain dogmas and canonize Saints without your assistance or input. Further, the Church is really not in need of your opinion after-the-fact.
I don't live in your State--so I don't vote in your elections.
You may extend the same courtesy, and apply it to the Church, as well.
Actually, this description sounds like David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg, and certain other practitioners of the law.
Perhaps the priests you speak of did not HAVE a real family? Were they, like certain embittered professional ex-Catholics, born under a rock?
Baloney! The Church stopped it when Martin Luther and the others protested and ultimately broke away. Where you do get off telling these lies?Since it is perfectly obvious that you are not a Catholic regardless of your baptism, why don't you buzz off?
Guess you can't stand hearing the truth, can you? Sorry, but what the Catholic church does affects all of us -- just ask the families of those children molested, not all of whom were Catholic. I ain't going nowhere.
I'll put my faith in God. The Pharisees thought they were infallible, too, and look what Jesus had to say to them. An infallible church would not have sold indulgences, to use just one example.
It's funny how you and others call me names yet never address (1) the scriptures that support my argument; or (2) the early church document that supports my argument.Why can't you handle intelligent, rational conversation?
Why are you afraid of engaging in intelligent, rational discussion? If you are right, you should be able to state your point logically and reasonably. If you are wrong, perhaps you might learn something.
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.