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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Just because Peter had a mother-in-law doesn’t mean that my priest should married now. That’s a stretch. As you have said, the Bible doesn’t really say one way or the other whether priests should be married and so we rely on the teaching of the Church. Don’t you understand that our faith is based on more than the Bible, especially when the Bible doesn’t even speak to this matter?
And it also tells us to pray to God -- not to St. Bob or St. Brittany -- for guidance.///Have you ever asked a friend to pray for you or for your family? Then why can’t I ask a friend to pray for me after they have died? They are even closer to God after death.
Besides there are far more important things than whether priests are allowed to marry, like the Real Presence in the Eucharist, etc. Please work on the log in your eye before you criticize the speck in your brother’s eye. (And we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.)
In other words, you're not going to address the issues I raised. Boy, am I shocked.Just because Peter had a mother-in-law doesn’t mean that my priest should married now. That’s a stretch. As you have said, the Bible doesn’t really say one way or the other whether priests should be married and so we rely on the teaching of the Church.The recent sex abuse scandals have turned the clergy celibacy from an intrachurch question to a national issue. If you can't see that, then you need to wake up. The Dallas diocese is out millions of dollars that could have gone to good work if the clergy and the laity had just paid attention.
Wrong. The Bible says that clergy may be married. It doesn't require them to be married but it certainly doesn't prohibit them from being married. The Catholic Church is putting a burden on priests that some can't bear, and is causing them to sin as a result. That sin is affecting more than just Catholics.Then why can’t I ask a friend to pray for me after they have died?
Because the Bible specifically prohibits us from trying to contact the dead.Please work on the log in your eye before you criticize the speck in your brother’s eye.
So what log is in my eye? The log of telling the truth, which you don't like to hear?
I believe that the recent tragic problems in our church have grown up in the past 35 years because we have relaxed the rules too much. This is not a cause for more relaxation of the rules. A problem that has developed in the past couple decades does not mean we should change rules that have existed for more than a millennia.
Also, I don’t believe that the ‘burden’ celibacy is too much to bear for anyone who wishes to be a priest. And if it is for that certain person, then he may drop out of the priesthood and become a married man.
Sure, and you can continue to wonder why there are fewer and fewer priests entering seminary and why more and more of your parishioners are joining evangelical churches because they are tired of their leadership not addressing the real issues.Nice job of still not addressing the facts that I raised. I take it that your silence means you have no credible argument in your behalf.
Oh, and relax, Chigirl. :-)
If you think that our Church is going to die out because all our parishioners are leaving, why do you care? Isn't that what you want?
I don't wonder why there are fewer priests in seminaries. I know the reason is the liberalization of the Church, not because priests can't be married. If that were the cause, why hasn't the priesthood died out 800 years ago. In times of trouble, we need to hold on to our Traditions, not let them be dictated by the new "thought-of-the-day." (Also, some seminaries are experiencing a great resurgence of numbers. Those are the seminaries which are the MOST Traditional.)
Actually, they haven't. Not a single person has addressed the early church document by Clement of Alexandria that mentions Peter being with his wife before she was martyred. Care to try and knock a hole in it or do you just wish to keep dodging facts which don't fit your pet beliefs?If you think that our Church is going to die out because all our parishioners are leaving, why do you care? Isn't that what you want?
Actually, it isn't. My hope is that all churches will stop preaching unbiblical and damaging doctrine, whether it be the requirement of celibate clergy for Catholics, the prohibition against drinking alcohol by Baptists, or the "pray-yourself-to-riches" doctrine of people like Benny Hinn. I have a lot of admiration for Catholics -- you guys were pro-life before it even hit Protestants that there was a problem. I think that evangelical Protestants have done a great job of catching up, but you guys were there first.In times of trouble, we need to hold on to our Traditions, not let them be dictated by the new "thought-of-the-day."
We agree here, but since priestly celibacy wasn't a popular idea until the 4th century and wasn't made mandatory until the 11th century, I would argue that you need to get back to the original Church traditions. It's the "thought-of-the-day" for the 4th century that you're hanging onto, not the gospel preached by Jesus, taught by the apostles, or practiced by the early church.
I don’t have to disprove that Peter had a wife in order to support priestly celibacy. Maybe he did have a wife. The doctrine of Tradition does not necessarily mean that we are trying to maintain the church as it was in the year 35. Peter was also a practicing Jew, but that doesn’t mean we have to circumcise our sons, observe the Sabbath and avoid eating pork. Also, Peter’s wife could have died before he became an apostle. That is how they could be together in heaven. If you think that our Church is going to die out because all our parishioners are leaving, why do you care? Isn't that what you want? Actually, it isn't. My hope is that all churches will stop preaching unbiblical and damaging doctrine, whether it be the requirement of celibate clergy for Catholics, the prohibition against drinking alcohol by Baptists, or the "pray-yourself-to-riches" doctrine of people like Benny Hinn. I have a lot of admiration for Catholics ...
We do have many things in common, which I why I wish you could just accept that we are going to follow our own Tradition that has sustained our church for over 2000 years. This Tradition is not something to mess with lightly.
. It's the "thought-of-the-day" for the 4th century that you're hanging onto, not the gospel preached by Jesus, taught by the apostles, or practiced by the early church.
Well, this thought has lasted over a millennium, so I don’t know if it could be characterized as a thought of the day. We are never going to convince each other that either of us is right on this issue. Can we just give it up now? We agree on some very important things besides this.
Yes. The Real Presence is the ESSENCE of our Church, and there are parishes all over the Southwest where that Real Presence in the Mass is in danger of becoming an occasional occurrence because there are no priests to celebrate it.
Remember, there are 15,000 married deacons in this country, and there are likely at least 25% or more of them who would jump at the chance to serve as priests.
You really think there are that many? If so, think of the immense good that 3,750 mature, committed priests could do for this country. The only thing that's holding the Catholic Church back from this blessing is the adherence of so many to a tired old man-made rule that has no basis in the Bible or the early Church.This reminds me of the story of the rich young ruler who wanted eternal life from Jesus but didn't want to give up the shiny trinkets he had collected. Why won't the Catholic Church give up its tarnished trinket of enforced priestly celibacy? Is this little bauble worth more than the blessings of God?
Actually, it won't be giving it up.
Celibacy will be embraced by those who are called to it, and those with ambition to the episcopacy. I don't realistically think the Church would do anything more than adopt the Eastern Rite practice, which is married priests, and celibate bishops.
Celibacy is simply not something that most men are called to.
And, yes, I think there are EASILY 4,000 married deacons who would go on to the priesthood. And, given the position many of the more mature men are in, it would NOT be a financial burden on the Church.
There is nothing in the ordination ceremony to the permanent diaconate about the priesthood. And there is certainly no vow that a permanent deacon takes to not ever pursue the priesthood.
There was nothing about "always remaining a deacon," although I will always remain at least a deacon, if something happens to my wife.
He is, after all, completely anonymous.
Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos doesn't lurk here.
There were no married deacons prior to 1976. Things change.
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.