Will priests be allowed to marry again ?

[JimR-OCDS]

I disagree. What I have read on the history of the subject, the practice of the Western Church was married priests and for that matter all members of the three highest orders lived in continence. The point being is that in the West, celibacy and the priesthood have for the far majority of our history been tied at the hip. Not so the case in the East.

This is not correct. Married priest had children and one of the major issues with the Church mandating celibacy for priests was the issue of inheritance of Church property by their off-spring.

Jim

 

[Erose]

Considering that:

A) The rule prohibiting priests from marrying is not biblical, but stems from a rule imposed in the 11th century to keep inheritance within the church.
AND
B) The rampant abuse carried out by priests in recent years across the globe.

Do you think priests should marry? And of so, do you think this will ever be allowed by the church again?

I say allowed "again", because before Pope Gregory VII (11th century) priests were allowed to marry as stated in holy scripture.
1 Timothy 3:2 - Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach.

Titus 1:6-7 - ...if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach...

It is a false claim to pin the enactment of clerical celibacy on Pope Gregory VII. During his time, there was a common abuse among clerics to have concubines. Pope Gregory fought aggressively to eliminate this abuse among clerics.

 

[Erose]

This is not correct. Married priest had children and one of the major issues with the Church mandating celibacy for priests was the issue of inheritance of Church property by their off-spring.

Jim

In the a East yes, and maybe in the first few centuries in the West, but in the West this was not true from early on. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a fairly good article on the subject here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm. Continence was a very common practice in the West. The question is was it an official practice or was it a practice that was frowned on enough by the Church to make it a practice.

 

[Erose]

1) There is not a short of priests. It is a matter of location. There are lots and lots of priests in Asia and Africa.

so the question I would ask is this due to more men in Africa and Asia are being called to the priesthood than in the Western countries; or are the same percentage of men in the West are being called as in other places, but in the West more men reject the call?

2) It is NOT a huge assumption to believe that many married men would come priests if they could. Consider how many married men are in the permanent deaconate in the US. Consider how many priests have left the priesthood or seminary to be married.

I think it is. Why would one make the assumption that those men who rejected the call to the priesthood, would accept the call after being married? I think that is a very huge assumption.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

In the a East yes, and maybe in the first few centuries in the West, but in the West this was not true from early on. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a fairly good article on the subject here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm. Continence was a very common practice in the West. The question is was it an official practice or was it a practice that was frowned on enough by the Church to make it a practice.

Continence was practice as the Jewish priest did, in that when a priest was to celebrate Mass, he would remain in continence.

This was not the case 24/7 for married priest, although there were cases of married priest making vows of continence.

It was not mandated however, but voluntary.

In the West, Celibacy in the West became mandated and part of the reason was inheritance of Church property by the family of a married priest.

FYI, beware that the newadvent version of the Catholic Encyclopedia is from 1917. It's not always 100% accurate and the Church has new understanding of various issues that were not known in 1917.

Jim

 

[Erose]

Continence was practice as the Jewish priest did, in that when a priest was to celebrate Mass, he would remain in continence.

This was not the case 24/7 for married priest, although there were cases of married priest making vows of continence.

It was not mandated however, but voluntary.

In the West, Celibacy in the West became mandated and part of the reason was inheritance of Church property by the family of a married priest.

FYI, beware that the newadvent version of the Catholic Encyclopedia is from 1917. It's not always 100% accurate and the Church has new understanding of various issues that were not known in 1917.

Jim

Jim we are going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. Everything I have read among the Church fathers, it is quite obvious that very early in the Church in the West, celibacy and the priesthood went hand in hand, not for inheritance issues, but for the fulfilling of the Pauline recommendation. Even in the first Ecumenical council there is a canon against women living with priests, unless they are mothers, sisters or aunts. Not one mention of a wife at all in that list.

Concerning the reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Why I recommended it was that it was still fairly accurate on the matter. But if you need more then here is a wonderful read on the subject from the Vatican archives:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ts/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim we are going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. Everything I have read among the Church fathers, it is quite obvious that very early in the Church in the West, celibacy and the priesthood went hand in hand, not for inheritance issues, but for the fulfilling of the Pauline recommendation. Even in the first Ecumenical council there is a canon against women living with priests, unless they are mothers, sisters or aunts. Not one mention of a wife at all in that list.

Concerning the reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Why I recommended it was that it was still fairly accurate on the matter. But if you need more then here is a wonderful read on the subject from the Vatican archives:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ts/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

I know that celibacy was valued above marriage, but that's not my point.

The reality is, the West had married priests and those priests fathered children. There is no two ways about this.

But there were problems with married priests in addition to the inheritance problems. Keep in mind that these were the days of arraigned marriages and often the arraignments were condition on wealth and power, which the clergy got themselves involved with.

Today if the Church were to allow married men to become priests, there would be issues and it would be wise if the Vatican worked with the Orthodox on how to prevent the issues they most certainly have learned to deal with.

Jim

 

[Erose]

Ok.

I don't think we are every going to see this becoming the norm. Currently it is the exception, and I think it is going to stay that way. A celibate priesthood is too ingrained in our particular Church's tradition. It would be like us Romans adopting the Liturgy of James as our normal Liturgy, or start using leaven bread for the Eucharist. It is a tradition that is just too deep to change overnight. Let us not forget that Eastern Christians have a different approach than we do. They look at things quite differently. Not wrong, just a different angle of perception.

Tradition with a "t", is still extremely important to a particular Church. To be frank it is what makes that particular Church...well particular.

For the Roman Church to lift the norm of celibacy on its priesthood, it is going to have to require something a whole lot more than concern for the number of vocations. Its going to have to have a liturgical or shift in emphasis of how the priesthood is viewed first. The norm will never be lifted for something as mundane as concern over vocations, especially considering that there is zero evidence that lifting the norm will have a significant impact of local vocations. Me I very seriously doubt it would. First and foremost, how many married men (who also have to heed the call) are financially secure enough to leave work, and attend seminary full time? Most seminarians rely on the goodwill of donations for them to have any extra money over and beyond their necessities. Families have greater needs.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It won't be any different than allowing married priest who convert to be ordained.

 

[Erose]

I disagree. These men by far do not have to go though as intense a formation as normal. Since they have already been ministers with another faith tradition, that is a huge advantage of lets say my son, deciding to enter formation.

Again in those cases we are talking about exceptions and not norms. There is a huge difference between the two. Exceptions don't happen all that often, compared to it being normal practice. So the financial load on the diocese is not significantly impacted by lets say one exception among thirty norms.

 

[saintandrew4life]

I think it would be very good for the Churco have married Priests

 

[stray bullet]

stray bullet,

Unless they went to seminary, you don't really know. It's a discernment process. No one really knows if they would become a priest until they get to the end.

In actuality, because they weren't even allowed into the discernment process, they wouldn't know.

The men knew that it was either marriage or the priesthood.

Right, but you never know what you are meant to do until you go through seminary.

Openly gay men aren't pedophiles.

99% of the sexual abuse cases by Catholic Priests, were committed by homosexual priest with post pubescent teen age boys or heterosexual priest with females. Less than 1% of the case were pedophilia cases, priest with prepubescent children.

This was from a study by Professor Philip Jenkins.

Openly gay men aren't pedophiles. They Church also does not allow openly homosexual men to be priests in general.

Statistically, the larger the pool you can draw from, the more you get.


Jim

That's not how it would work. People think men enter seminary because they want to be priests and celibate. WRONG.

Men enter because they feel called to be priests and are willing to sacrifice for it.

 

[stray bullet]

This is not correct. Married priest had children and one of the major issues with the Church mandating celibacy for priests was the issue of inheritance of Church property by their off-spring.

Jim

WRONG.

Had nothing to do with property. Priests didn't own Church property. Try studying canon law.

-- stray

 

[stray bullet]

I know that celibacy was valued above marriage, but that's not my point.

The reality is, the West had married priests and those priests fathered children. There is no two ways about this.

But there were problems with married priests in addition to the inheritance problems. Keep in mind that these were the days of arraigned marriages and often the arraignments were condition on wealth and power, which the clergy got themselves involved with.

Today if the Church were to allow married men to become priests, there would be issues and it would be wise if the Vatican worked with the Orthodox on how to prevent the issues they most certainly have learned to deal with.

Jim

In the early Church, priests were men that raised families and then lived a life of celibacy.
The east and west went different directions with ordaining younger men, obviously.

Inheritance has nothing to do with anything except as it pertains to bishops.

Your last statement is offensive. The Church already has married priests. It does not need to consult schismatics when the eastern rites can already 'advise'.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

stray bullet


Openly gay men aren't pedophiles. They Church also does not allow openly homosexual men to be priests in general.

The majority of sexual abuse cases were not pedophilia, i.e. sexual abuse of a child younger than the age of puberty.

The majority were homosexual priest with post pubescent teen age boys.

Since the sexual abuse scandal, the Church has stopped allowing men with strong homosexual tendencies into the priesthood. Prior, they didn't do a good job screening candidates for the seminary.

St John's Seminary in Brighton MA, became so over run with homosexuals, that it had a homosexual atmosphere to the point that straight men either left after being disgusted from what the saw, or were not allowed to continue on, especially if they complained about the homosexual acts they saw taking place.


That's not how it would work. People think men enter seminary because they want to be priests and celibate. WRONG.

Men enter because they feel called to be priests and are willing to sacrifice for it.

Men feel called, but also know they will have to accept celibacy. A married man may also feel called but knows he will not be accepted as a seminarian.

If the Church opens the door for married me, you can be sure there will be those who are called.

Jim

 

[Erose]

I think it would be very good for the Churco have married Priests

She already does.

 

[stray bullet]

stray bullet


Openly gay men aren't pedophiles. They Church also does not allow openly homosexual men to be priests in general.

The majority of sexual abuse cases were not pedophilia, i.e. sexual abuse of a child younger than the age of puberty.

And the sky is blue but mentioning a fact doesn't make another statement factual. Being gay doesn't mean you want to have sex with children.

The majority were homosexual priest with post pubescent teen age boys.

The majority of what?

Since the sexual abuse scandal, the Church has stopped allowing men with strong homosexual tendencies into the priesthood. Prior, they didn't do a good job screening candidates for the seminary.

Until recently they didn't screen anyone. They still allow all kinds of messed up individuals in today.

St John's Seminary in Brighton MA, became so over run with homosexuals, that it had a homosexual atmosphere to the point that straight men either left after being disgusted from what the saw, or were not allowed to continue on, especially if they complained about the homosexual acts they saw taking place.

I was in seminary (nearly ordained) and when someone says that it is a person that is justifying running away from their calling. People that are obsessed with homosexuals need their head examined.

Men feel called, but also know they will have to accept celibacy. A married man may also feel called but knows he will not be accepted as a seminarian.

If the Church opens the door for married me, you can be sure there will be those who are called.

Jim

Men enter seminary without any final decision being made.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

stray bullet,

And the sky is blue but mentioning a fact doesn't make another statement factual. Being gay doesn't mean you want to have sex with children.

I didn't say being gay means you want to molest children, how you got this is beyond me.

However, the majority of sexual abuse committed by priests, were homosexual priest with young teen age boys, not children.

Look up Dr Philip Jenkins and read his study on the issue.

Jim

 

[stray bullet]

stray bullet,

And the sky is blue but mentioning a fact doesn't make another statement factual. Being gay doesn't mean you want to have sex with children.

I didn't say being gay means you want to molest children, how you got this is beyond me.

However, the majority of sexual abuse committed by priests, were homosexual priest with young teen age boys, not children.

Look up Dr Philip Jenkins and read his study on the issue.

Jim

You asserted that allowing homosexuals into the priesthood caused homosexuality.
That's like saying allowing members of an ethnic group into the priesthood caused scandals pertaining to stereotypes.

 

[stray bullet]

<STAFF EDIT>

You posted that the Church doesn't allow homosexual men into the priesthood.

I merely showed that they did.

Jim

That doesn't even begin to describe our discourse.