Married Catholic Priests. They CAN exist, but do they?

The Smurf

Jakkass wrote: »

The Smurf - It's a valid question given that your position is in direct contradiction with the take that Paul took. I've read the quote that you have given, and it also is in direct contradiction with the Biblical take.

If you post something here, people are welcome to question and challenge your point of view. This is a discussion forum.

His position on sacraments is also inaccurate from both Anglican and Lutheran takes on ordination.

Are you saying the Pope is mistaken? I think Protestants are mistaken on both sacraments and morality, as well as other aspects of theology, according to Catholic teaching and the natural law. We've talked about that elsewhere.

Our Blessed Lord lauded celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. Is He mistaken?

Our Catholic priests are meant to be other Christs. They are meant to be shepherds after Christ's own heart. This means they must conform themselves to Christ. The Catholic faith is an incarnational religion. I've come to the conclusion that it is indeed a totally different 'thing' to the Protestant religion.

This is the teaching of the Church on the priesthood. If it is not accepted, then I guess that is anyone's choice. But if I don't like Starbucks coffee, I don't go to the kitchen and complain about it, I go somewhere else, like Costa Coffee. This is what beats me, how people think they can dictate to the Church. If you don't like the product, then that's fine, but don't think you can change it to suit your preferences. That is not how it works.

philologos

The Smurf wrote: »

Are you saying the Pope is mistaken? I think Protestants are mistaken on both sacraments and morality, as well as other aspects of theology, according to Catholic teaching and the natural law. We've talked about that elsewhere.

If the Pope is in direct contradiction to the Apostles, and the Scriptures. Then yes, he is mistaken.

I'm sure we have "talked" about it elsewhere. It's beggars belief that you think that the Pope's opinion comes above the revelation we have from God in the Scriptures.

The Smurf wrote: »

Our Blessed Lord lauded celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. Is He mistaken?

Jesus never said that any member of clergy had to be celibate, but that it was an option that people could take. This is the same position that Paul put across in his writings.

The Smurf wrote: »

Our Catholic priests are meant to be other Christs. They are meant to be shepherds after Christ's own heart. This means they must conform themselves to Christ. The Catholic faith is an incarnational religion. I've come to the conclusion that it is indeed a totally different 'thing' to the Protestant religion.

All Christians are meant to conform themselves to Christ, but this doesn't mean that all have to be celibate. It seems to me that you favour trusting the words of fallible men rather than what is divinely inspired.

The Smurf wrote: »

This is the teaching of the Church on the priesthood. If it is not accepted, then I guess that is anyone's choice. But if I don't like Starbucks coffee, I don't go to the kitchen and complain about it, I go somewhere else, like Costa Coffee. This is what beats me, how people think they can dictate to the Church. If you don't like the product, then that's fine, but don't think you can change it to suit your preferences. That is not how it works.

By the by, I never "changed". As for "complaining about it". I'm not "complaining" I'm merely holding your position to scrutiny. I'm not even arguing that the RCC should change, I'm merely arguing that their current position is in contradiction with the Scriptures.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

If you post something here, people are welcome to question and challenge your point of view. This is a discussion forum.

Quite correct. I am getting rather tired of posters trying to lecture and restrict who can post what in discussion threads. This thread is open for Catholics and non-Catholics alike to express their opinions, and if things get out of line the mods will wield our ban-sticks accordingly.

Vinny-Chase

The Smurf wrote: »

But if I don't like Starbucks coffee, I don't go to the kitchen and complain about it, I go somewhere else, like Costa Coffee. This is what beats me, how people think they can dictate to the Church. If you don't like the product, then that's fine, but don't think you can change it to suit your preferences. That is not how it works.

Yeah but the difference is people aren't told they are eternally damned because Starbucks is the one true coffee, and drinking any other coffee means regardless of your actions you are wrong!

The Smurf

Jakkass wrote: »

If the Pope is in direct contradiction to the Apostles, and the Scriptures. Then yes, he is mistaken.

I'm sure we have "talked" about it elsewhere. It's beggars belief that you think that the Pope's opinion comes above the revelation we have from God in the Scriptures.



Jesus never said that any member of clergy had to be celibate, but that it was an option that people could take. This is the same position that Paul put across in his writings.



All Christians are meant to conform themselves to Christ, but this doesn't mean that all have to be celibate. It seems to me that you favour trusting the words of fallible men rather than what is divinely inspired.



By the by, I never "changed". As for "complaining about it". I'm not "complaining" I'm merely holding your position to scrutiny. I'm not even arguing that the RCC should change, I'm merely arguing that their current position is in contradiction with the Scriptures.

St Paul was a single man, and a great Church leader. He believed that those who are married are concerned with worldly affairs, whereas those who are not may be completely devoted to the Lord. The idea that only a married man with wife and kids is worthy to be a bishop would exclude several of the Apostles, including John and Paul. The Church in the Latin Rite has discerned that the best way for its priests and bishops to live is by voluntary celibacy. I say voluntary, because it is voluntary. If you want to be a priest in the Latin Rite, then ordinarily you must not be married and you must remain celibate. It is in the vows of ordination, it is taken up freely by the candidate for priesthood, thus the priests who talk about compulsory celibacy are talking nonsense. The vow of celibacy is voluntary. If they remember back to their ordination they will see this to be the case. Perhaps they didn't know what they were getting themselves into - that I don't doubt due to the woeful formation given to seminarians at Maynooth, which to this day is very problematic.

Some would argue that the Church forbids marriage, but again this is not the case. Any man or woman is free to marry. But if they make vows to God, then they are no longer free to marry. This is what Paul meant when he mentions an order of widows who had pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge". The early Church did contain orders of religious nuns with mandatory celibacy, just like the Church today has.

philologos

The Smurf wrote: »

St Paul was a single man, and a great Church leader.

OK. So where does that leave him as an authority in comparison to the Pope?

The Smurf wrote: »

He believed that those who are married are concerned with worldly affairs, whereas those who are not may be completely devoted to the Lord.

Paul did say this in 1 Corinthians yes.

The Smurf wrote: »

The idea that only a married man with wife and kids is worthy to be a bishop would exclude several of the Apostles, including John and Paul.

This isn't the reasoning that Paul gives in either Titus, or 1 Timothy in respect to clergy with children. Paul recognises that it can be beneficial to be both married, and be a member of clergy.

The Smurf wrote: »

Some would argue that the Church forbids marriage, but again this is not the case. Any man or woman is free to marry. But if they make vows to God, then they are no longer free to marry. This is what Paul meant when he mentions an order of widows who had pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge". The early Church did contain orders of religious nuns with mandatory celibacy, just like the Church today has.

Nobody once on this thread has said that the RCC forbids marriage. It forbids marriage in certain contexts. This isn't Biblical. Even if one becomes a member of clergy, they should still be free to marry on a Biblical basis, both in the Mosaic covenant and in the New Covenant.

As for the early church, I assume you are referring to the early RCC (post Nicea), rather than the early Christian church (post Jesus).

The Smurf

Jakkass wrote: »

OK. So where does that leave him as an authority in comparison to the Pope? (You tell me!)

Paul did say this in 1 Corinthians yes.

This isn't the reasoning that Paul gives in either Titus, or 1 Timothy in respect to clergy with children. Paul recognises that it can be beneficial to be both married, and be a member of clergy. (Can be beneficial. Can also be not beneficial, as per his other statements.)

Nobody once on this thread has said that the RCC forbids marriage. It forbids marriage in certain contexts. This isn't Biblical. Even if one becomes a member of clergy, they should still be free to marry on a Biblical basis, both in the Mosaic covenant and in the New Covenant. (The tradition is not just like that. In the eastern rite Catholic churches (and I think in the orthodox too) the man can marry then be a priest. He can't be a priest then marry. Plus if the wife dies, she can't be replaced under warranty)

As for the early church, I assume you are referring to the early RCC (post Nicea), rather than the early Christian church (post Jesus).

comments in red.

philologos

The Smurf wrote: »

comments in red.

1. I'm asking you, so I would like to hear your answer.

2. If being a married member of clergy can be beneficial, then there is no good reason for forbidding married clergy to operate, as other denominations do.

3. Another good reason to allow clergy to marry.

The Smurf

Jakkass wrote: »

1. I'm asking you, so I would like to hear your answer.

2. If being a married member of clergy can be beneficial, then there is no good reason for forbidding married clergy to operate, as other denominations do.

3. Another good reason to allow clergy to marry.

1. St Paul is an Apostle. Pope Benedict is the successor of St Peter. You disregard one and accept the other, whereas the Catholic embraces both. Not that the Pope is a continuation of divine revelation which ended with the death of the last Apostle, but the Pope has a unique God ordained purpose (cf. Mt 16:18). This is rejected by Protestants, of course.

2. The Catholic Church is not a 'denomination'. The Catholic Church has married clergy in the Latin Rite, as an exception to the rule. The Church has decided that it is better to have celibate priests as a norm in the Latin Rite, for a variety of reasons.

3. In the east, the bishops are taken from the ranks of the celibate priest monks. The married priests are unable to become bishops. Yet I wonder why there are no major calls to have this changed?

ISAW

Jakkass wrote: »

The Smurf - You brought up the merits or priestly celibacy on this thread. People should be fully free to disagree with you on this thread, if you bring it up. Non-Catholic opinion is welcome on this board, because it is the "Christianity" forum, and not the "Catholicism" forum.

Non Catholics even indeed Buddhists would actually extol the virtues of celibacy so please be prepared to mention that before you might give the impression that it is only a Catholic ideal.

philologos

ISAW wrote: »

Non Catholics even indeed Buddhists would actually extol the virtues of celibacy so please be prepared to mention that before you might give the impression that it is only a Catholic ideal.

I believe most other Christians would also accept that celibacy indeed is virtuous. Most of us wouldn't agree that celibacy should be compulsory before being able to serve God at any stage of ministry though.

The Smurf

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe most other Christians would also accept that celibacy indeed is virtuous. Most of us wouldn't agree that celibacy should be compulsory before being able to serve God at any stage of ministry though.

That's not correct. We have married deacons in the Catholic Church. we even have some married priests in the Latin Rite, and the Eastern Rite Catholics have married priests.

The Church has decided that it is best to have celibate priests as the norm in the Latin Rite. This celibacy is not compulsory, it is mandatory, and they are not the same. [Edit: Hmm... the dictionary says they are. What I mean is... . If you don't want to be a celibate Catholic priest, then nobody will force you to become one. Perhaps young men were strongly coerced/encouraged in Ireland of times past, but certainly not now.]

mdebets

The Smurf wrote: »

1. St Paul is an Apostle. Pope Benedict is the successor of St Peter. You disregard one and accept the other, whereas the Catholic embraces both. Not that the Pope is a continuation of divine revelation which ended with the death of the last Apostle, but the Pope has a unique God ordained purpose (cf. Mt 16:18). This is rejected by Protestants, of course.

If the RCC bases the special position of the Pope on him being the successor to St. Peter, why isn't he allowed to follow St. Peter's lifestyle and can marry, as St. Peter was clearly married?

So if you embrace both, St. Paul and the popes, whom do you follow if they contradict each other (e.g S.t Paul doesn't say celibacy is needed, Pope Benedict says it is)?

dory

The Smurf wrote: »

I don't see why people are so hung up about this. Most of the people talking about this aren't priests and many are unable to be priests.

People are 'so hung up' about it because they believe the child abuse may never have happened if the priests had had their own families and children. They were instead made live a very lonely, and unnatural life which may have been why they went so insane when it came to children.

Also, when it comes to things like pre-marriage courses they might actually know what they're talking about.

How many people scoffed at a woman with a screaming 2 year old in a supermarket, but then later got their own 2 year old and completely understood.

The Smurf wrote: »

Also, our Irish priests say they are overworked as it is. Can you imagine if they had wife and kids? They'd be even more inaccessible to their people than they are at present! It's hard enough stealing a few minutes with any of our local priests. I can imagine that the lay people would go out the window of concern altogether if there was wife and kids. God said you can only serve one master. I think if there's a choice between the wife and a parishioner's needs, the wife will win each time. A priest is a shepherd of souls, and should be available to his flock.

In all fairness, many Christian priests of other denominations can marry and I've never once heard someone complain that they can't get time with their priest because of it. In fact, it may entice more people to the role and cause an increase in the amount of priests. So they can live their happy lives with their families and attend to their flock.

antiskeptic

But lots of people choose to remain batchelors/spinsters - remaining celebate in the process. One needn't draw the conclusion of great sacrifice just because someone enters the priesthood.

True. But a good priest is a man who would also have made a good father. A priest is a father to spiritual children. Therefore a good priest is a man who would experience the sacrifice of giving up marriage for the sake of the Kingdom.

The Roman church (like any church) cannot produce only good priests – it will produce average and poor priests too. Indeed, priests on average will be average – which reduces the sacrificial element to but average (by this thinking of yours).

Which isn't displaying a lot of confidence in the selection process. Can that process (which I gather takes a number of years) not differentiate between a person with a genuine spiritual calling and a .. freeloader?

I don't actually have very much faith in much of anything that is presently going on at our national seminary. I have inside contacts!

Which dissolves your point in that case. There is no need to worry about lack of celibacy attracting freeloaders if the process can’t differentiate anyway between those who have a genuine calling and those who are unsuitable material for the priesthood.

A congregation who'd appreciate someone who's life bore a passing resemblance to their own? Someone who shares the same trials that they undergo but who finds strength in the grace of God and can point others to the very source that helped them in their self-same trials?


I don't need to have firsthand experience of marriage in order to advise others on this vocation. It is a modern error which says only those with direct experience are in any way able to comment. The mindset is illustrated when a person says ''What does a celibate old man in Rome know about marriage?''

The question isn’t whether you can advise – anyone can indeed advise anyone on anything – but whether your advice carries any weight. Sure, someone can see that a marriage problem is rooted in selfishness and use a general knowledge to advise on the specific case. But to suppose one can do as well as someone with direct experience is to dissolve the role of experience in advising.

The Smurf wrote: »

I should issue a reminder that this thread will, by necessity, deal with specifically Catholic ideas which are a given. Many non-Catholics might object to this or that, but this thread is not the place to enter into those kinds of discussions.

I think it is, since this is a Christianity forum. Folk would be entitled to question the wisdom of Catholic teaching. You can respond that the Roman Church says it, you believe it, that settles it in which case no discussion is possible (nor necessary). But if attempting to posit the reasonableness of the position on celebate priests then that standpoint is open to query.

ISAW

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think it is, since this is a Christianity forum. Folk would be entitled to question the wisdom of Catholic teaching. You can respond that the Roman Church says it, you believe it, that settles it in which case no discussion is possible (nor necessary). But if attempting to posit the reasonableness of the position on celebate priests then that standpoint is open to query.

Indeed, it is, but please don't conflate an issue based on reference to reasonable argument with bigotry, even if it is based on belief in authoritative theological source.

antiskeptic

ISAW wrote: »

Indeed, it is, but please don't conflate an issue based on reference to reasonable argument with bigotry, even if it is based on belief in authoritative theological source.

I'm not sure what you mean here ISAW?

The Smurf

dory wrote: »

People are 'so hung up' about it because they believe the child abuse may never have happened if the priests had had their own families and children. They were instead made live a very lonely, and unnatural life which may have been why they went so insane when it came to children.

In all fairness, many Christian priests of other denominations can marry and I've never once heard someone complain that they can't get time with their priest because of it. In fact, it may entice more people to the role and cause an increase in the amount of priests. So they can live their happy lives with their families and attend to their flock.

Happily married men also abuse their own children. Abusers abuse, it's what they do, whether they are married or not. Most sexual abuse takes place in families by fathers, uncles, step-father etc... Marriage is not a hospital for sexual deviants.

It's a popular but erroneous notion: celibacy drives normal, healthy men mad, and then they abuse boys.

The actual case is this: unbalanced men became priests and abused boys.

Let's try similar logic on the married man: healthy, normal men get married, go mad, and abuse their own children. Or try this: a sexual deviant gets married, the marriage cures his problem, and they all live happily ever after.

The popular narrative is peddled by all sorts of people who should know better, including the abbot of Glenstal, on the 'would you believe' programme, who said the same thing as what you've just said.

ISAW

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean here ISAW?

Did you not use the words?:

1. "the Roman Church says it, you believe it, that settles it in which case no discussion is possible (nor necessary)"

that is different to saying

2. there is an established authoritative theological source and the debate has been trashed out before and a person trusts that source.

Case 1 tantamount to bigotry case 2 isn't!

philologos

How is it ISAW?

Splendour

The Smurf wrote: »

Are you saying the Pope is mistaken?

Well given that priests, in the early church, were allowed to marry, someone somewhere along the RCC line was/is mistaken.

The Smurf

Splendour wrote: »

Well given that priests, in the early church, were allowed to marry, someone somewhere along the RCC line was/is mistaken.

Priests in the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church can be married. There are also married priests in the Latin Rite, mostly Anglican converts.

There is an interesting article here about the history of celibacy in the Catholic Church here, which shows that your understanding is deficient:

Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. The Argument over Celibacy
Cardinal Schönborn proposes "rethinking" this obligation for the Catholic clergy. And so do other bishops. Benedict XVI, however, wants to strengthen it. In support he has the whole history of the Church, since the time of the apostles
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1343466?eng=y

A brief excerpt:

In this music, just a couple of things are usually heard and understood.

The first is that the celibacy of the clergy is a rule imposed in recent centuries on the Latin clergy alone.

The second is that Catholic priests should be allowed to marry "as in the primitive Church."

The problem is that both of these things are at odds with history and theology.

*

Also at the heart of the error is a poor understanding of the concept of clerical celibacy.

Throughout the first millennium and also afterward, in the Church the celibacy of the clergy was properly understood as "continence." Meaning as complete renunciation, after ordination, of conjugal life, even for those who had previously been married.

The ordination of married men, in fact, was a common practice, also documented by the New Testament. But in the Gospel, one reads that Peter, after his call to be an apostle, "left everything." And Jesus said that there are some who even leave "wives or children" for the Kingdom of God.

While in the Old Testament, the obligation of sexual purity applied to priests only during the periods of their service at the Temple, in the New Testament the following of Jesus in the priesthood is total, and consumes the entire person, always.

The fact that since the beginning of the Church priests and bishops were required to abstain from conjugal life is confirmed by the first rules written on the matter.

These began to appear in the fourth century, after the end of the persecutions. With the sharp rise in the number of the faithful, ordinations also increased, and with them the violations of continence.

Against these infractions, councils and popes intervened repeatedly to reaffirm the discipline they themselves called "traditional." This was done by the Council of Elvira in the first decade of the fourth century, which punished lack of respect for continence with exclusion from the clergy; other councils a century later; popes Siricius and Innocence I; and still other popes and Fathers of the Church, from Leo the Great to Gregory the Great, from Ambrose to Augustine to Jerome.

For many more centuries, the Western Church continued to ordain married men, but always demanded that they renounce conjugal life and separate from their wives, after receiving their consent. Infractions were punished, but they were very frequent and widespread. In part to combat this, the Church started trying to select its priests from among the celibate.

-

dory

The Smurf wrote: »

Happily married men also abuse their own children. Abusers abuse, it's what they do, whether they are married or not. Most sexual abuse takes place in families by fathers, uncles, step-father etc... Marriage is not a hospital for sexual deviants.

It's a popular but erroneous notion: celibacy drives normal, healthy men mad, and then they abuse boys.

The actual case is this: unbalanced men became priests and abused boys.

Let's try similar logic on the married man: healthy, normal men get married, go mad, and abuse their own children. Or try this: a sexual deviant gets married, the marriage cures his problem, and they all live happily ever after.

The popular narrative is peddled by all sorts of people who should know better, including the abbot of Glenstal, on the 'would you believe' programme, who said the same thing as what you've just said.

We'll never know for sure, and I'm sure for some men there were different causes. But you can't deny that a larger proportion of priests were molesters than married men. That's not to say no married men can be molesters, but it still points to the unnatural way the priests were pretty much brought up (as many were so young) in those seminaries. It's just not natural, which is funny because that's what they say about gay people. :rolleyes:

PDN

dory wrote: »

We'll never know for sure, and I'm sure for some men there were different causes. But you can't deny that a larger proportion of priests were molesters than married men.

Actually he can deny it - and with good reason. The rates of child molestation by priests is on a par with the rest of the population.

philologos

The Smurf wrote: »

The Church has decided that it is best to have celibate priests as the norm in the Latin Rite. This celibacy is not compulsory, it is mandatory, and they are not the same. [Edit: Hmm... the dictionary says they are. What I mean is... . If you don't want to be a celibate Catholic priest, then nobody will force you to become one. Perhaps young men were strongly coerced/encouraged in Ireland of times past, but certainly not now.]

This reasoning is inadequate. If you don't want to become a celibate Catholic priest, indeed don't become one. What if you just want to become a priest?

The Biblical text doesn't prohibit this, but rather the rules and structures that man has placed around it do.

georgieporgy

Jakkass wrote: »

This reasoning is inadequate. If you don't want to become a celibate Catholic priest, indeed don't become one. [PHP]What if you just want to become a priest? [/PHP]The Biblical text doesn't prohibit this, but rather the rules and structures that man has placed around it do.

Wanting to become a priest isn't enough. It's a vocation (ie a calling), and the call comes from God. This calling has to be tested to make sure it is genuine. The judgement is made by someone other than the individual who feels he has a vocation.

or to try to put it in worldly terms - the employee does not dictate to his future employer what the conditions of employment are.

philologos

georgieporgy wrote: »

Wanting to become a priest isn't enough. It's a vocation (ie a calling), and the call comes from God. This calling has to be tested to make sure it is genuine. The judgement is made by someone other than the individual who feels he has a vocation.

Agreed. What if you are married / engaged / in a relationship, and feel a call to be a priest / minister / pastor?

Believe it or not, there is no part of divine revelation that claims that one shouldn't be able to do this.

georgieporgy wrote: »

or to try to put it in worldly terms - the employee does not dictate to his future employer what the conditions of employment are.

Indeed, I wouldn't use the term "employed" to describe ministry. I guess someone needs to ask another question. "Who 'employs' / 'calls' these people? First and foremost, is it the RCC, or are these people serving God?

georgieporgy

The purpose of my post was to clarify what catholics understand the priesthood to be. Reread it and you will see I stated clearly that the call to the catholic priesthood comes from God.

I don't know where the desire to become a minister or leader in other religions comes from and am not in a good position to express an authoritative view on it.

married people have a vocation to love their spouses before all others (even before their children). This is how they will sanctify themselves. (remember, the duty of a christian is to sanctify oneself).

Both vocations are mutually excusive. This is the Catholic view. I understand completely that Anglicans and all the other Protestant denominations hold different views on this and other subjects. "Bible only" christians sometimes forget that catholics are not "bible only".

This is why we have different religions! And it doesn't necessarily mean catholics are better than non catholics.(though we like to think we are )

PS Jakkass, I have read many of your posts on other forums. excellent work.