You think the Church should allow Priests and Nuns to get married?

[zippy2006]

Have you ever debated a Protestant before on the topic of Mary being sinless, and have been replied to with "Romands 3:23 - For all have sinned"? What was your answer on that, in fact, what is the answer of online catholic answer sites? I know you are probably thinking/saying "what does this have to do with what i said", but please just answer that for me.

You think Jesus is an exception to the rule?

But why did God create Eve for Adam? Refer to Matthew 19:4-5, 1 Cor. 11:9 and Gen 2:18 and then explain to me why. Also, I do not disagree about Celibacy on not being universally appropriate. I do understand and acknowledge other situations such as how Jesus put it with the eunuchs, however our priests where never originally ordered to do such things. Even Pope Francis stated this as a manmade tradition and not dogma.

Mandatory celibacy in the Western presbyterate is a (very old) discipline, but your argument goes far beyond that. For example, it isn't as clear that celibacy in the episcopate is merely a discipline. Jesus' example is quite central to the tradition of Christian celibacy. (Not sure how much longer I am going to continue this conversation.)

 

[zippy2006]

But most of us to do reject the idea that we can red herring the abuse crisis as an excuse to say [prohibition of celibacy] should happen.

What's fascinating to me is the utter ignorance of sexuality in a strongly sexualized culture. Chesterton has a quote about how the man who stands up to the wind knows it's strength, not the man who is easily blown over by it. Sexual repression and its effects are largely theoretical musings in our society. No one actually knows first-hand the effects of abstinence because no one practices it. Therefore sexual abstinence becomes the mysterious, unknown scapegoat. The "abstinence leads to pedophilia" argument is weak everywhere, including phenomenologically. It is founded on an utter incomprehension of human sexuality.

 

[Markie Boy]

I agree - the problem is keeping unfit men out of the priesthood. My perspective is mandatory celibacy keeps too many Good Men out of the priesthood.

We'll never keep all the unfit out.

Whatever has currently been done has obviously not worked, so something must change.

 

[Cis.jd]

You think Jesus is an exception to the rule?

In Romans 3:23? Yes, i think he is. Do you?

Mandatory celibacy in the Western presbyterate is a (very old) discipline, but your argument goes far beyond that. For example, it isn't as clear that celibacy in the episcopate is merely a discipline. Jesus' example is quite central to the tradition of Christian celibacy. (Not sure how much longer I am going to continue this conversation.)

I said before, i do agree that marriage isn't meant for everybody. There are people in this world who are just not meant for it, for many reasons. But my argument is that there are too many reasons why we can see Celibacy as a reason for the action of the priests who have engaged in Pedophilia or homosexuality.

If you read my post about my friend who became a priest and told me that seminaries tell young-soon to be priests to experience and empty all the sexual desires before they enter priesthood. There is a reason why they are told to do this.

 

[zippy2006]

In Romans 3:23? Yes, i think he is. Do you?

Yes, certainly, and it's a fair point. The big difference is that the marriage/celibacy topic does not involve inherent evil as sin does. If Jesus does something then it is not incompatible with human nature. That's my point.

But my argument is that there are too many reasons why we can see Celibacy as a reason for the action of the priests who have engaged in Pedophilia or homosexuality.

But as Davidnic pointed out, none of your points have even come close to holding water. That's one reason why I don't want to prolong this conversation. A dead horse can only be beaten for so long.

If you read my post about my friend who became a priest and told me that seminaries tell young-soon to be priests to experience and empty all the sexual desires before they enter priesthood. There is a reason why they are told to do this.

What year was that? I currently have friends in 7 different seminaries and each of them would laugh at such an idea. It just isn't happening any more. Most vocations directors won't even consider men with that mindset.

 

[MariaJLM]

Coming from an outsider perspective and a church that does allow the ordination of married men, I see no harm in the Catholic church allowing married men to be ordained. I do understand why you guys are hesitant as celibacy has simply been your tradition for so long, but I think it would solve some problems(not the sex abuse scandal ,though, I don't think it would make a difference there).

I personally have encountered many Catholic men who were interested in becoming priests, but were hung up on the whole celibacy thing. I do think more people would enter the priesthood if celibacy was not a requirement, somewhat offshooting your clergy shortage. Granted, we have a clergy shortage too, but I think it's mostly a problem in countries where Orthodoxy is a minority faith, thus we don't have a large pool to take priests from in the first place.

As for nuns, monks, religious, etc. I would say a definite no in allowing them to be married. It defeats the entire purpose of their vocation. Not to mention it would be difficult to raise a family in a monastery/convent setting. All I can really say to that is that if somebody in the religious life wants to marry then perhaps they need to reconsider whether that life is for them.

 

[Cis.jd]

Yes, certainly, and it's a fair point. The big difference is that the marriage/celibacy topic does not involve inherent evil as sin does. If Jesus does something then it is not incompatible with human nature. That's my point.
But as Davidnic pointed out, none of your points have even come close to holding water. That's one reason why I don't want to prolong this conversation. A dead horse can only be beaten for so long.

I understand your point, but it's a bad one. The point I am referring to in Romans 3:23 is that we can't use Jesus or Mary as an example for everything. There are certain human factors/issues in where we know Jesus is exempted from. Sexuality would be one of them because how is he, God, going to be sexually attracted to someone? In his eyes, all people are his children/creation.

Therefore the argument of "well Jesus and Mary managed to live with out any sex, so i that means we can do it". That reasoning is flawed and illogical.
Since Jesus could live with out it, so we can as well.. really? Go back to the verse you quoted in Matt 19. Who are the people that Jesus references that can't be married, it's the Eunichs. Men, who were physically where incapable of sexual intercourse. Our bodies have been naturally designed to experience this, that is why when young boys/females reach puberty their bodies sexually develop. Human nature shows this and yet you are closing your eyes/ears because of how attached you are to tradition.

What year was that? I currently have friends in 7 different seminaries and each of them would laugh at such an idea. It just isn't happening any more. Most vocations directors won't even consider men with that mindset.

Around 2009.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The necessity of having a celibate priesthood and the teaching that the celibate priesthood is superior and generally preferable was affirmed as dogma in the Council of Trent.

"CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema."

- The General Council of Trent (1545-63 A.D.), The Twenty-Fourth Session​

And it is dogma because it is based on the teaching of Jesus Christ and St. Paul.
.

 

[Markie Boy]

That's what I was holding back from saying, but I believe it's true. Most Catholics are so attached to tradition it's hard to think of change. That could be something that harms far more than helps.

It may be better for those called to it, but that's where it ends.

 

[zippy2006]

Go back to the verse you quoted in Matt 19. Who are the people that Jesus references that can't be married, it's the Eunichs. Men, who were physically where incapable of sexual intercourse.

See, that would be a great answer if verse 12 didn't exist. That's the problem with your position: you have to completely ignore certain verses, statistics, arguments, and realities in order to keep pushing your side. As soon as you face up to reality (like verse 12, or the actual pedophilia statistics) the game is up. But that's up to you, not me.

 

[Cis.jd]

See, that would be a great answer if verse 12 didn't exist. That's the problem with your position: you have to completely ignore certain verses, statistics, arguments, and realities in order to keep pushing your side. As soon as you face up to reality (like verse 12, or the actual pedophilia statistics) the game is up. But that's up to you, not me.

You know, you are right. It makes me curious as to why God designed our bodies and minds to develop for the capability of sexual interaction with the opposite gender. Why would God design all males to have an erection, generate sperm, etc etc especially the males who chose to live mandatory celibacy if there isn't going to be a purpose?

 

[zippy2006]

You know, you are right. It makes me curious as to why God designed our bodies and minds to develop for the capability of sexual interaction with the opposite gender. Why would God design all males to have an erection, generate sperm, etc etc especially the males who chose to live mandatory celibacy if there isn't going to be a purpose?

There is a purpose, but it is transcended by divine union. In fact marriage is a kind of image and reflection of union with God, which is precisely what it is a foretaste of. Matthew 22:30 is very much on point.

 

[Cis.jd]

There is a purpose, but it is transcended by divine union. In fact marriage is a kind of image and reflection of union with God, which is precisely what it is a foretaste of. Matthew 22:30 is very much on point.

Thanks for that reply, I do understand that point on marriage but it's the question in regards to the human body that I am curious about.

Here's an example, if you ever spoken to a transgender you'll see that their reasoning is that they feel they are the opposite gender on the inside; some try to make fake science answers about having more Y chromosomes than an X... we know this is wrong because we believe God created them to be either male/female, period, and this shows because their physical bodies feature and perform the natural capabilities that males/females were designed with.

This analogy fits the context of my question in regards to men entering celibacy. I understand that it is a choice, just as that verse in Matt implies.. but they are still born with a fully functioning sexual features that a normal human beings have - not just in the physical sense but even the mental sense: the hormones chemicals that are rushing because of the reproductive cells producing, the physical arousals that happen, etc.. Why did God design these men to have these fully functioning human drives if they are restricted to use it?

 

[zippy2006]

Thanks for that reply, I do understand that point on marriage but it's the question in regards to the human body that I am curious about.

Here's an example, if you ever spoken to a transgender you'll see that their reasoning is that they feel they are the opposite gender on the inside; some try to make fake science answers about having more Y chromosomes than an X... we know this is wrong because we believe God created them to be either male/female, period, and this shows because their physical bodies feature and perform the natural capabilities that males/females were designed with.

This analogy fits the context of my question in regards to men entering celibacy. I understand that it is a choice, just as that verse in Matt implies.. but they are still born with a fully functioning sexual features that a normal human beings have - not just in the physical sense but even the mental sense: the hormones chemicals that are rushing because of the reproductive cells producing, the physical arousals that happen, etc.. Why did God design these men to have these fully functioning human drives if they are restricted to use it?

I mostly don't know, for it is above my pay grade. But I will say that it seems to me like a special case of sacrifice. All authentic sacrifice offers something which is in itself good (or in the case of the spotless lamb, something which is excellent). Why did God give the Jews spotless lambs and then ask them to give them back, to sacrifice them? Sexuality is a particularly potent sacrifice, but it still falls in that category.

As far as masculinity goes it may well be the case that the celibate is still meant to exercise his masculinity, just not in explicitly sexual ways.

 

[Rhamiel]

People want to lower the Church because it is easier to bring things down to your level rather than elevate yourself

The egalitarian, the populist, the democratic, the lowest common denominator

This is what people rush to

When our Lord was feeding the masses and rebuking the hypocritical elitist Pharisees the crowds flocked to Him!
But how quickly their enthusiasm withered when they saw Him who was gentle take the scourging at the pillar, He who possessed true nobility take the mockers crown of thorns, He who preached life and salvation, who IS Life and Salvation, willingly carry the timber of a cruel death

So many love the Church when it is doing charity work for your community or when the priest has a witty little homily on Sunday morning you can listen to with your family before brunch.
Oh but when the Church talks about sacrifice, then from the Right and the Left you hear a chorus of “you have to get with the times” “that’s just not practical” “try being more reasonable”

 

[Cis.jd]

I mostly don't know, for it is above my pay grade. But I will say that it seems to me like a special case of sacrifice. All authentic sacrifice offers something which is in itself good (or in the case of the spotless lamb, something which is excellent). Why did God give the Jews spotless lambs and then ask them to give them back, to sacrifice them? Sexuality is a particularly potent sacrifice, but it still falls in that category.

As far as masculinity goes it may well be the case that the celibate is still meant to exercise his masculinity, just not in explicitly sexual ways.

That's a good answer.. and not to challenge it but wouldn't one big difference between sacrificing a lamb (or anything that we love) and sacrificing sexuality is one that the later is genetically and chemically "engineered"? You see, my questioning (and maybe views) is based of being a designer myself and I view God as the greatest designer ever. For us Designers, we create things with a purpose and everything we put in whether visually or internally is so that design functions and meets that purpose. In every design we will make an element or feature to: accomplish the main goal of the design, to allow it to work properly, or even both.

An example of this is a an electric fan, you open the top guard and place your finger on the center hub, what happens is that the fan blades stop spinning. Now if you put a tape on that hub or whatever it is that will prevent the blades from spinning while the fan is on... what happens is it breaks. Atleast common fans will. Because the elements that operate in it are currently at work (as it was placed in there too) but is being stopped. That fan was not designed to operate right if that center hub was intervened (or anything internally for the matter).

So this is part of my confusion: God has still designed these men with the same sexual functions that you, me, and everyone has (erection, sperm producing, the ability of fantasies, hormone rushing) these are engineered in their bodies and psyche. This isn't given as a gift like a lamb or money to be returned as offering, but something he put in his design because with out it we as humans can't survive and continue to exist or feel a strong level of companionship with our designed "Eve" with out it. Note, this isn't an argument but an in depth explanation of the question i have.

 

[zippy2006]

That's a good answer.. and not to challenge it but wouldn't one big difference between sacrificing a lamb (or anything that we love) and sacrificing sexuality is one that the later is genetically and chemically "engineered"? You see, my questioning (and maybe views) is based of being a designer myself and I view God as the greatest designer ever. For us Designers, we create things with a purpose and everything we put in whether visually or internally is so that design functions and meets that purpose. In every design we will make an element or feature to: accomplish the main goal of the design, to allow it to work properly, or even both.

An example of this is a an electric fan, you open the top guard and place your finger on the center hub, what happens is that the fan blades stop spinning. Now if you put a tape on that hub or whatever it is that will prevent the blades from spinning while the fan is on... what happens is it breaks. Atleast common fans will. Because the elements that operate in it are currently at work (as it was placed in there too) but is being stopped. That fan was not designed to operate right if that center hub was intervened (or anything internally for the matter).

So this is part of my confusion: God has still designed these men with the same sexual functions that you, me, and everyone has (erection, sperm producing, the ability of fantasies, hormone rushing) these are engineered in their bodies and psyche. This isn't given as a gift like a lamb or money to be returned as offering, but something he put in his design because with out it we as humans can't survive and continue to exist or feel a strong level of companionship with our designed "Eve" with out it. Note, this isn't an argument but an in depth explanation of the question i have.

I suppose I would say that the purpose of marriage and sexuality is union and fecundity. Yet we know that marriage is a temporary institution (cf. Mt 22:30). So either the physical sexual desire comes to term and ends at death or else it is transcended into something more. The Catholic view is that it is transcended and transformed into a spiritual union and fecundity.

So a simple answer would be to compare it to an aid that is unnecessary for some. A more complicated answer would be to say that sexuality itself is taken up and transformed in such a way that it achieves union with God rather than union with a human being. C.S. Lewis paints a similar picture in The Great Divorce when the lizard of carnality is killed and transformed into the noble steed.

Perhaps the burning love of the celibate saint includes within it their sexuality, a sexuality which has been transformed to such a degree that it does not look like the incipient sexuality of their teenage years. Honestly, even marriage involves chastity, self-giving and sacrificing love, and an intense focusing of one's sexuality. Celibacy is just another step, a step which every Christian will need to take at death.

Each is called to their own path, but the purpose of marriage and celibacy is ultimately the same: union with God. Christian celibacy is just love of God in a sort of exclusive way.

 

[Cis.jd]

I suppose I would say that the purpose of marriage and sexuality is union and fecundity. Yet we know that marriage is a temporary institution (cf. Mt 22:30). So either the physical sexual desire comes to term and ends at death or else it is transcended into something more. The Catholic view is that it is transcended and transformed into a spiritual union and fecundity.

So a simple answer would be to compare it to an aid that is unnecessary for some. A more complicated answer would be to say that sexuality itself is taken up and transformed in such a way that it achieves union with God rather than union with a human being. C.S. Lewis paints a similar picture in The Great Divorce when the lizard of carnality is killed and transformed into the noble steed.

Perhaps the burning love of the celibate saint includes within it their sexuality, a sexuality which has been transformed to such a degree that it does not look like the incipient sexuality of their teenage years. Honestly, even marriage involves chastity, self-giving and sacrificing love, and an intense focusing of one's sexuality. Celibacy is just another step, a step which every Christian will need to take at death.

Each is called to their own path, but the purpose of marriage and celibacy is ultimately the same: union with God. Christian celibacy is just love of God in a sort of exclusive way.

Thanks. I really enjoy reading your wisdom on these things. My initial views were rooted because of how I want this controversy with in the church to stop. Because it is that bad.

I didn't live in the USA when I was growing up, and I have gone to catholic schools from gradeschool until highschool and let me tell you there was a lot of these molestation stuff happening in my school. It didn't go mainstream, the kids didn't voice out anything, but I and many in that school have seen it.
It wasn't a problem with my school but also a problem with other catholic schools and institutions that some of my childhood friends and just people i've met growing up have witnessed. In fact, I had another friend who was about to enter priesthood, and he did not end up pursuing it because of being sexually abused by 3 priests in that monastery. Because of that he became a Protestant and he can't step inside a catholic church because of what he's experienced.

He was around 24 at the time and this took place back in 98. His reason for conversion wasn't because of theological/doctrine disagreements but because of being traumatized and harboring so much anger from it. According to him, there were things he witnessed as well in his grade school days. Sure, we all know this sexual/Pedo molestation issues can be done by anybody, not just a priest.

Most people (as seen in the earlier posts here) say that it's not celibacy but homosexuals and pedophiles just going into this career. However I don't believe anybody is born gay or pedo; I think every single form of sexual attraction/preference is environmentally influenced.

So one question that comes up is: what are the other logical reasons that we can also suggest to consider on what causes these men (who are supposed to be servants of God) to do such negative things? If it isn't the hormones and chemicals in their bodies going hay-wire because of the natural system that is engineered, then what are other reasons and how can the church solve this? Even if there are atheists, buddhists, protestants pedophilies we still don't want this happening in our church, much more being a stereotype.

 

[thecolorsblend]

My view is that (and i am no scientist or psychologist) I think that the reason why child abuse and pedophilia has been happening is because priests and nuns have been suppressing a natural need. Sexual relationships. The intimacy between a man and a woman.

This same scandal exists in Protestant communities where their pastors are allowed to marry.

The issue here isn't celibacy.

 

[zippy2006]

Thanks. I really enjoy reading your wisdom on these things. My initial views were rooted because of how I want this controversy with in the church to stop. Because it is that bad.

I didn't live in the USA when I was growing up, and I have gone to catholic schools from gradeschool until highschool and let me tell you there was a lot of these molestation stuff happening in my school. It didn't go mainstream, the kids didn't voice out anything, but I and many in that school have seen it.
It wasn't a problem with my school but also a problem with other catholic schools and institutions that some of my childhood friends and just people i've met growing up have witnessed. In fact, I had another friend who was about to enter priesthood, and he did not end up pursuing it because of being sexually abused by 3 priests in that monastery. Because of that he became a Protestant and he can't step inside a catholic church because of what he's experienced.

He was around 24 at the time and this took place back in 98. His reason for conversion wasn't because of theological/doctrine disagreements but because of being traumatized and harboring so much anger from it. According to him, there were things he witnessed as well in his grade school days. Sure, we all know this sexual/Pedo molestation issues can be done by anybody, not just a priest.

Most people (as seen in the earlier posts here) say that it's not celibacy but homosexuals and pedophiles just going into this career. However I don't believe anybody is born gay or pedo; I think every single form of sexual attraction/preference is environmentally influenced.

So one question that comes up is: what are the other logical reasons that we can also suggest to consider on what causes these men (who are supposed to be servants of God) to do such negative things? If it isn't the hormones and chemicals in their bodies going hay-wire because of the natural system that is engineered, then what are other reasons and how can the church solve this? Even if there are atheists, buddhists, protestants pedophilies we still don't want this happening in our church, much more being a stereotype.

I'm sorry to hear about your friend and the situation that took place in your school. The problem is so overwhelming, complicated, and oppressive that desperation creeps in at which point it is hard to differentiate real causes from scapegoats. Celibacy gets a lot of attention in this way, but I don't think it is a root cause. I made a few posts about what I do see as a root cause beginning here (confused ethics and moral theology in the context of a sexually rampant culture).

Honestly, though, I don't really know what the answer is. I want a strong purge at every level of the Church, but someone needs to figure out where the roots of the issue reside so that they can be addressed. Although I haven't done enough research myself, I did read an interesting article about Fr. Thomas Doyle O.P. which provides a glimpse into the history of the problem. Doyle seemed to think the problem began around the time of the second world war. Others think it began in the late 1800s with the birth of the secular homosexual movement.

Sorry if I was argumentative and caustic earlier in the thread. I am unfortunately cynical towards forums.