New Pope and celibacy

[jjones]

IMO, the eastern orthodox church has it right. They permit married men to become priests and only require celibacy for bishops. However they do not permit priests to get married; the man must be married before he is ordained, not the other way around.

 

[mAdMaLuDaWg]

Less than 1% off all priests in the US have been accused of Child Abuse... let me say it again... less than 1%. As to those who were actually convicted less than 1/2%. No, there wasn't any epidemic as the mass media lead you to believe.Celibacy is not the problem here. Anyone who believes otherwise does not have their facts right.
There was a breakdown in the hierarchy and awful judgement by people in power. What needs to be done, and thankfully is being done (but not fast enough IMO), is to more seriously handle allegations of child abuse instead of covering it up.
Allowing Priests to marry is not, in any way, going to solve the problem. Sick perverts are going to come in to any profession no matter what you do.
And yes, it is shameful to the Catholic Church and I am ashamed of what has happend, and feel that certain people abused their power/used bad judgement... but again, Celibacy is not at all the cause for this. Any analyst will tell you this.

 

[MisfitsFiend]

Many people don't know that there are Catholic Priests that are married. The Catholic Church is divides roughly into two branches. The western rite, ie Roman Catholic and Eastern Rite, ie Greek (aka Byzantine) Catholic (NOT ORTHODOX). Both fall under the jurisdiction of the Pope (Rome), however the traditions of the Eastern Cathilic Church comes from Constantinople. The Eastern Rite Catholic priests can be married (and like jjones said above, much like the orthodox church), however, you must be married before you take your final vows (so a married man can become a priest, yet a priest can not marry).

So, I think that changing the tradition of married priests could happen (it's a tradition, not a doctrine so it could be changed). I can not see the ordination of women.

 

[RaiderJ]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Fausto
They need to change the "We'll look the other way and/or help you cover your tracks if you choose to diddle little boys" rule first.

:thumbsdown:

i'm surprised at your comment. they have been making ammends and realizing past errors.

Mosh, with all respect, I think the church's response has been tepid at best. We're talking about egregious abuse of children by those typically placed in a position of highest trust by families. Instead of a scorched-earth policy for the abusers, we saw relatively weak punishment meted out or outright concealment of the abusers in some cases. These people are criminals of the highest order and need to be treated accordingly.

[Robin Williams]
It's not just a sin, it's a felony!
[/Robin Williams]

 

[tami]

if history has shown that no pope has ever violated the celibacy requirement, it would be a slap in the face to thousands of years of the pope dynasty to void the requirement.

i'm not catholic, and i'm not even christian. i am, however, inclined to say that if a tenet was adhered to so stringently throughout literally hundreds/thousands of years, the decree should be kept -- and it's a really wonderful thing to know that it was never violated.

further, i think anyone up for papacy would consider being celibate a very important thing and would not go against this prohibition just because it's more "natural" or "modern" or whatever excuse anyone would make for celibacy of popes to be considered null and void (it was natural to have sex when the papacy started, too.). he has given his life of sexual relations up to become pope and that is at a cost he was obviously willing to pay.

 

[Stark]

they are going to run out of priests in the US soon if they don't change the policy. odds are it will change soon.

 

[jst0ney]

I doubt the celebacy tradition will change.

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: tami
if history has shown that no pope has ever violated the celibacy requirement, it would be a slap in the face to thousands of years of the pope dynasty to void the requirement.

i'm not catholic, and i'm not even christian. i am, however, inclined to say that if a tenet was adhered to so stringently throughout literally hundreds/thousands of years, the decree should be kept -- and it's a really wonderful thing to know that it was never violated.

further, i think anyone up for papacy would consider being celibate a very important thing and would not go against this prohibition just because it's more "natural" or "modern" or whatever excuse anyone would make for celibacy of popes to be considered null and void (it was natural to have sex when the papacy started, too.). he has given his life of sexual relations up to become pope and that is at a cost he was obviously willing to pay.

In the past many Popes were married. Link

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: tami
if history has shown that no pope has ever violated the celibacy requirement, it would be a slap in the face to thousands of years of the pope dynasty to void the requirement.

i'm not catholic, and i'm not even christian. i am, however, inclined to say that if a tenet was adhered to so stringently throughout literally hundreds/thousands of years, the decree should be kept -- and it's a really wonderful thing to know that it was never violated.

further, i think anyone up for papacy would consider being celibate a very important thing and would not go against this prohibition just because it's more "natural" or "modern" or whatever excuse anyone would make for celibacy of popes to be considered null and void (it was natural to have sex when the papacy started, too.). he has given his life of sexual relations up to become pope and that is at a cost he was obviously willing to pay.

Nobody said anything specifically about the Pope not being celibate, but that doesn't mean lower-echelon priests who don't have papal or cardinal aspirations need to be held to it as well.

And there had been married popes and other clergy prior to a papal decree ruling otherwise, a ruling that was probably more political than spiritual in basis.

Finally, trite as it may be, that something has been done for 1000s of years is hardly a compelling reason to keep doing it. For thousands of years slavery was acceptable, the world was flat, the Earth was the center of the universe, etc. One of the things working against the Catholic church (and many other sects for that matter) is an irrascible clinging to antiquated doctrines that were perhaps well-thought-out and beneficial during the time period they came to be, but the world has changed and those doctrines should periodically be re-evaluated to make sure they still make sense.

 

[tami]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: tami
if history has shown that no pope has ever violated the celibacy requirement, it would be a slap in the face to thousands of years of the pope dynasty to void the requirement.

i'm not catholic, and i'm not even christian. i am, however, inclined to say that if a tenet was adhered to so stringently throughout literally hundreds/thousands of years, the decree should be kept -- and it's a really wonderful thing to know that it was never violated.

further, i think anyone up for papacy would consider being celibate a very important thing and would not go against this prohibition just because it's more "natural" or "modern" or whatever excuse anyone would make for celibacy of popes to be considered null and void (it was natural to have sex when the papacy started, too.). he has given his life of sexual relations up to become pope and that is at a cost he was obviously willing to pay.

Nobody said anything specifically about the Pope not being celibate, but that doesn't mean lower-echelon priests who don't have papal or cardinal aspirations need to be held to it as well.

And there had been married popes and other clergy prior to a papal decree ruling otherwise, a ruling that was probably more political than spiritual in basis.

Finally, trite as it may be, that something has been done for 1000s of years is hardly a compelling reason to keep doing it. For thousands of years slavery was acceptable, the world was flat, the Earth was the center of the universe, etc. One of the things working against the Catholic church (and many other sects for that matter) is an irrascible clinging to antiquated doctrines that were perhaps well-thought-out and beneficial during the time period they came to be, but the world has changed and those doctrines should periodically be re-evaluated to make sure they still make sense.

okay, so my knowledge about the papacy is limited (again, i'm not catholic) and i did not know that popes were previously married.

i still think, however, that nullifying the prohibition isn't modernization. humans had sexual instincts since adam and eve were created. not much has changed.

 

[mAdMaLuDaWg]

The only thing that allowing Priests to be married will achieve is just increase the number of Priests. If anyone thinks its going to achieve anything else, they are misguided.
I do know that the US in particular is facing a Priest shortage but I am not for solving the problem by allowing Priests to be married because I don't believe that they will be able to serve with the same amount of dedication if they are married.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: tami
okay, so my knowledge about the papacy is limited (again, i'm not catholic) and i did not know that popes were previously married.

i still think, however, that nullifying the prohibition isn't modernization. humans had sexual instincts since adam and eve were created. not much has changed.

Whether it's modernization or not really depends on what the prohibition is meant to achieve, and the changing nature of both marriage and the role of a priest as a counselor, advisor and role model.

The concept of marriage has changed drastically in the past 1000 years.

The prohibition has little to do with having sex. It ostensibly is to eliminate distractions from serving God (and any married man can attest that sex is probably one of the lesser distractions that married life brings), and on the inside meant to free the Church as a corporation (read: autocratic body) from secular/outside influences in the form of a woman marrying a clergyman who goes on to achieve a higher rank and then tries to do things that may have been inspired not by God, but by his wife.

There is a clear need for such secular insulation, but in the 21st century that insulation could potentially be achieved without such draconian measures, and it would help revitalize an organization that many see as outdated, archaic, and well-overdue for extinction.

 

[Baked]

So not only can they F boys, they'll allowed to F women too?

 

[mAdMaLuDaWg]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: tami
okay, so my knowledge about the papacy is limited (again, i'm not catholic) and i did not know that popes were previously married.

i still think, however, that nullifying the prohibition isn't modernization. humans had sexual instincts since adam and eve were created. not much has changed.

Whether it's modernization or not really depends on what the prohibition is meant to achieve, and the changing nature of both marriage and the role of a priest as a counselor, advisor and role model.

The concept of marriage has changed drastically in the past 1000 years.

The prohibition has little to do with having sex. It ostensibly is to eliminate distractions from serving God (and any married man can attest that sex is probably one of the lesser distractions that married life brings), and on the inside meant to free the Church as a corporation (read: autocratic body) from secular/outside influences in the form of a woman marrying a clergyman who goes on to achieve a higher rank and then tries to do things that may have been inspired not by God, but by his wife.

There is a clear need for such secular insulation, but in the 21st century that insulation could potentially be achieved without such draconian measures, and it would help revitalize an organization that many see as outdated, archaic, and well-overdue for extinction.

Many people? Do you have proof for that? Ok, maybe the population in the US feels that way. I'm sure the churches in Asia will not agree, South America may not either.

Extinction? With over a billion followers, the Church is not going to become extinct anytime soon 🙂

 

[mAdMaLuDaWg]

Originally posted by: Baked
So not only can they F boys, they'll allowed to F women too?

Its people like you who turn valid discussions into flamewars

 

[Sophia]

Originally posted by: Ynog

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Jzero
Well, they have to do SOMETHING to get some fresh blood into the clergy. Maybe it's working in other countries, but in the US it seems like there is a surplus of crotchety old grouches with their heads in the sand who are more interested in being judgemental than promoting spiritual well-being and loving the church instead of crawling back to it after it abuses you like a battered housewife.

The celibacy rule isn't going to be the silver bullet, but it will help. Perhaps celibacy should still be required for higher ranks, though.

In general, Catholocism's stances on sexuality need to be reworked.

i think you may see women priests before the vow of celibacy is eliminated.

Personally, I'm not sure which you will see eliminated first. But even recently, the Catholic Church has nullifed/denied any woman has been ordained as a priest. It has excommunicated any memeber of the church who attempts to/or does ordain a woman, and will excommunicate any woman, who claims to and refuses to renounce that ordination.

Despite the pleas to allow women to become priests, I just don't see it happening anytime soon. Many in the church already believe that there is a place for women in it. And being a priest isn't part of it.

I would imagine, that if the Catholic Church allowed either, it would unquestioningly allow married priests* before it would allow the ordination of women as priests.

*And by married priests, it may mean allowing married men to be ordained priests, but not necessarily allowing a single priest to marry after he has been ordained. I believe this is the case now in the Eastern Orthodox church, right?

The issue of married priests is a matter of discipline. There were married priests in the early Church, and there are a few now that were married protestant ministers who converted to Catholicism and were allowed to become Catholic priests.

The issue of ordaining women as priests tends to be seen as a matter of dogma. The late Pope John Paul II wrote in "Ordinatio Sacerdotales" that "I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." I can't imagine the next pope just just reversing this position.

 

[Ferocious]

bump for the late night crowd

 

[jlee]

<-- also Catholic

There's more of us than I thought.. 🙂

Originally posted by: Sophia

Originally posted by: Ynog

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Jzero
Well, they have to do SOMETHING to get some fresh blood into the clergy. Maybe it's working in other countries, but in the US it seems like there is a surplus of crotchety old grouches with their heads in the sand who are more interested in being judgemental than promoting spiritual well-being and loving the church instead of crawling back to it after it abuses you like a battered housewife.

The celibacy rule isn't going to be the silver bullet, but it will help. Perhaps celibacy should still be required for higher ranks, though.

In general, Catholocism's stances on sexuality need to be reworked.

i think you may see women priests before the vow of celibacy is eliminated.

Personally, I'm not sure which you will see eliminated first. But even recently, the Catholic Church has nullifed/denied any woman has been ordained as a priest. It has excommunicated any memeber of the church who attempts to/or does ordain a woman, and will excommunicate any woman, who claims to and refuses to renounce that ordination.

Despite the pleas to allow women to become priests, I just don't see it happening anytime soon. Many in the church already believe that there is a place for women in it. And being a priest isn't part of it.

I would imagine, that if the Catholic Church allowed either, it would unquestioningly allow married priests* before it would allow the ordination of women as priests.

*And by married priests, it may mean allowing married men to be ordained priests, but not necessarily allowing a single priest to marry after he has been ordained. I believe this is the case now in the Eastern Orthodox church, right?

The issue of married priests is a matter of discipline. There were married priests in the early Church, and there are a few now that were married protestant ministers who converted to Catholicism and were allowed to become Catholic priests.

The issue of ordaining women as priests tends to be seen as a matter of dogma. The late Pope John Paul II wrote in "Ordinatio Sacerdotales" that "I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." I can't imagine the next pope just just reversing this position.

:thumbsup:

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: Spike
I am not sure on the whole celibacy thing as every pastor I have had has been married. I don't consider it a bad thing to be married and a pastor, in my case all of the pastors have been better at addressing maritial concerns due to their own experience.

On the other hand, no wife means these priests have almost zero outside concerns besides the church and God, it allows them to really concentrate and listen, which IMO is the most important part of prayer and our walk with God. Too often we do all the talking which just gets in the way.

I have always been a "protestant" church attender and believer (yes, there is a difference between attender and believer) but occasionally go to a mass with my father-in-law.

-spike

FWIW:

1 Timothy 3:12 King James Bible:
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Titus 1:5-9 King James Bible:
5For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

6If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

7For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

8But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;

9Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

 

[AreaCode707]

I don't see any reason they should change. If you want to be a priest and be married, become Episcopalian and join the Anglican Communion.

 

[Sophia]

Originally posted by: HotChic
I don't see any reason they should change. If you want to be a priest and be married, become Episcopalian and join the Anglican Communion.

I don't doubt that there are instances in which this has occured, but there is no room for that in Catholic theology. The Catholic Church doesn't recognize the validity of the Anglican priesthood. What I'm trying to say is that sentiment doesn't really "do" anything for devout young Catholic gentlemen--who believe in their Church--who are discerning the priesthood vs. marriage. Suggesting that they can marry and become priests by committing apostasy would be a contradiction to these men. (At least I would hope our priests be so orthodox.)

I would put it something like this: The hierarchy of the Catholic Church will maintain or rescind the celibacy requirement as it sees fit. If you want to be a Roman Catholic priest, understand that this includes taking a vow of obedience at great personal sacrifice to yourself.

 

[Sophia]

Originally posted by: mAdMaLuDaWg
The only thing that allowing Priests to be married will achieve is just increase the number of Priests. If anyone thinks its going to achieve anything else, they are misguided.
I do know that the US in particular is facing a Priest shortage but I am not for solving the problem by allowing Priests to be married because I don't believe that they will be able to serve with the same amount of dedication if they are married.

Even if allowing married priests so spectacularly increased vocations that a parish with one very overworked priest could now have four (or six or however many) priests, some of them married with say (conservatively) two children, would we as parishoners be willing (or even able) to make the sacrifices necessary to employ all these new priests and support their families? One priest (or even several) in the same rectory is much easier for a parish to support than several families.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: HotChic
I don't see any reason they should change. If you want to be a priest and be married, become Episcopalian and join the Anglican Communion.

Because then you wouldn't be Catholic.