Would you tell your priest he had a hole in his pants?

[MariaRegina]

Dearest Papist:

Some radical groups want celibate priests to be given permission to marry. This could cause real problems.

Yours in Christ,
Elizabeth

I must be in that "radical group". I personally do not see why a priest can not or should not be married. Years ago this was a practice that was accepted, now it is not. Do I think this would stop some of the sexual problems within the church.......no, as evidenced by those Churches who allow their pastors to be married.

Chanterhanson.........what "real problems" would this present if priests were allowed to be married?

My dearest one in Christ:

re: Allowing celibate priests to marry

There was a study done in which celibate priests who had left the priesthood in the 1960's and 1970's were studied. Those who had married (these tended to be older when they married) were more likely to divorce. The psychologist who did the study said that they were set in their ways (confirmed bachelors) and could not handle a wife that wanted her own way nor noisy children. However, the psychologist did not assess the impact of guilt.

Once a man has pledged himself to be married to the church, which celibacy implies, and then changes his mind, he is unfaithful and instable. How can you expect such a man who manifests such instability to be faithful to a wife?

Just a thought.

Re: Married Priesthood

Men who wish to be married priests should get married first while they are young, then be ordained to the priesthood, which is the current practice in the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.

I am in favor of a married priesthood but the man should be married first before Ordination to the diaconate. The Roman Catholic Church has a few married priests who were previously ordained clergy within the Anglican/Episcopalian Church.

Hope this helps,
Elizabeth

 

[throughhiseyes]

My dearest one in Christ:

re: Allowing celibate priests to marry

There was a study done in which celibate priests who had left the priesthood in the 1960's and 1970's were studied. Those who had married (these tended to be older when they married) were more likely to divorce. The psychologist who did the study said that they were set in their ways (confirmed bachelors) and could not handle a wife that wanted her own way nor noisy children. However, the psychologist did not assess the impact of guilt.

Once a man has pledged himself to be married to the church, which celibacy implies, and then changes his mind, he is unfaithful and instable. How can you expect such a man who manifests such instability to be faithful to a wife?

Just a thought.

Re: Married Priesthood

Men who wish to be married priests should get married first while they are young, then be ordained to the priesthood, which is the current practice in the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.

I am in favor of a married priesthood but the man should be married first before Ordination to the diaconate. The Roman Catholic Church has a few married priests who were previously ordained clergy within the Anglican/Episcopalian Church.

Hope this helps,
Elizabeth

Chanter....one study dictates what all should be bound too? Hmmmmm, I think maybe an updated study should be performed. That ones seems a bit outdated. Seriously IF a man can not handle his noisy, unruly wife and children, how could he possible handle a congregation?

The point is that priests should not be forbidden to marry simply because the Church has dicated this. THIS was not originally done with our Church forefathers, so why is it now?

I still fail to see how a married priest would cause many problems. If anything I see benefits to this......he would be better apt to counsel couples as he has actually experienced what couples must endure. He would also be better prepared in counseling parenthood, as he himself has experienced it. I realize that priests must take counseling courses, however, life experiences better equip one to counsel than a book/course.

 

[MariaRegina]

Re:Married Priesthood

Men who wish to be married priests should get married first while they are young, then be ordained to the priesthood, which is the current practice in the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.

I am in favor of a married priesthood but the man should be married first before Ordination to the diaconate. The Roman Catholic Church has a few married priests who were previously ordained clergy within the Anglican/Episcopalian Church.

Seriously IF a man can not handle his noisy, unruly wife and children, how could he possible handle a congregation?

We do agree here. You just paraphased the scriptures.

The point is that priests should not be forbidden to marry simply because the Church has dicated this. THIS was not originally done with our Church forefathers, so why is it now?

Wrong! The tradition in the Church is for married men to become priests, not for ordained men to become married. You've got it reversed.

I still fail to see how a married priest would cause many problems. If anything I see benefits to this......he would be better apt to counsel couples as he has actually experienced what couples must endure. He would also be better prepared in counseling parenthood, as he himself has experienced it. I realize that priests must take counseling courses, however, life experiences better equip one to counsel than a book/course.

We agree here also My confessor is a married priest and he is great. He understands my husband, myself and my child. He is very patient and kind also.

I am in favor of a married priesthood, but the candidate for the priesthood should be either a married man or a monastic. Both should remain stable and faithful to their commitment: either remaining a faithful husband or remaining chaste until death.

Hope this helps.
Elizabeth

 

[nyj]

Years ago this was a practice that was accepted, now it is not.

I think saying "years ago" is a bit of a stretch when those years extend over a millenium.

 

[Caedmon]

I think saying "years ago" is a bit of a stretch when those years extend over a millenium.

I've learned that the Church has changed itself in many ways over the millenia. I inquired recently about other things that the Church has changed over the centuries, specifically penitentials, compulsory fasting, papal interdicts(which kept entire nations' peoples from participating in Eucharist, just because the pope wasn't happy with their monarchs), etc. With penitentials, they've gone from 15 years of penance to a few prayers, in some cases. I essentially got an answer stating that the Church has done these things to protect its interests in times of threat and unrest, as in the case of priests being forbidden to marry in the earlier Church, so that their sons could not receive the Church's assets as inheritance. These are the types of things that drive me from the Church. Unless I see stability in administration, I cannot obey. I would rather take a year's penance on myself than a few prayers, if that was the original practice.

 

[nyj]

Unless I see stability in administration, I cannot obey. I would rather take a year's penance on myself than a few prayers, if that was the original practice.

So you see the change from a years penance to a few prayers as instability in administration?

Don't you think that's picking nits Joe?

Regardless of whether you do 1 day, or 1 years worth of penance for any particular sin, the thing that matters most, and has gone unchanged, is the absolution of that sin.

The only thing I can see 1 years worth of penance doing for you is possibly reducing the time you spend in purgatory. The final outcome is the same though, regardless of the time spent in penance. You are forgiven your sin.

 

[Aaron-Aggie]

Joe, Remember penance should not be just a ritual where one looks up in a book a certain sin and does the prescribed penance for the crime. Penance should be about taking up a cross and reminding us that we have removed our selves from the correct path.

From the Catechism

1460 The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent's personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, "provided we suffer with him

The time and culture we live in affects what will be best for our spiritual good and personal situation. If a penance is no harsher then the current times it will provide no help in making a change in us. Thus in the harsh times of the middle ages penances were harder. Fasting for a short period would mean nothing to those who went for days with out real food in their normal life.

 

[Caedmon]

Well, how many things has the Church changed over the years like this? And if their so inconsequential as to not arouse any worry over administration, then why were these changes made at all? Why not just stay the same, eternally unchanging?

 

[MariaRegina]

From "holes in his pants" to "holes in the canons." Hmmmm!

 

[Caedmon]

From "holes in his pants" to "holes in the canons." Hmmmm!

Heh heh heh...

 

[nyj]

Why not just stay the same, eternally unchanging?

Ok Joe, don't read your Bible (since it wasn't canonized until three centuries after the death of Jesus Christ).

 

[MariaRegina]

Ok Joe, don't read your Bible (since it wasn't canonized until three centuries after the death of Jesus Christ).

My dearest Dominican Tertiary (nyj):

Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory to Him forever!

The Holy Ecumenical Councils were used by the Holy Spirit to define our faith - to clarify our thinking - and to canonize the books of the Scripture.

If it weren't for the Holy Canons which were derived from those Holy Ecumenical Councils, the Church would be in quite a pickle today.

But of course, I'm preaching to the choir. This is for the benefit of our guests who read our posts! And for that big brother, the Google Crawler!

Lovingly yours in Christ,
Elizabeth

 

[Caedmon]

Ok Joe, don't read your Bible (since it wasn't canonized until three centuries after the death of Jesus Christ).

Well the Bible wasn't canonized, and then diminished, like the other practices I mentioned. However, priests were allowed to marry, and then they weren't. People were penanced for years, and then they weren't. Fasting was compulsory, and then it wasn't. This puzzles me.

 

[nyj]

Well the Bible wasn't canonized, and then diminished, like the other practices I mentioned. However, priests were allowed to marry, and then they weren't. People were penanced for years, and then they weren't. Fasting was compulsory, and then it wasn't. This puzzles me.

Joe, they are called "disciplines" and they are allowed to change. No one has ever denied this, and I don't see anything you have mentioned as ground-shaking in their reversal.

Oh, by the way, where does it say that fasting isn't compulsory anymore?

 

[Bastoune]

Well the Bible wasn't canonized, and then diminished, like the other practices I mentioned. However, priests were allowed to marry, and then they weren't. People were penanced for years, and then they weren't. Fasting was compulsory, and then it wasn't. This puzzles me.

You should check out "Frequently asked questions" from this board:


http://www.christianforums.com/threads/12925.html

Part of your confusion is regarding the authorities invested in the Church, of binding and loosing...

Now, look at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. While Peter had had the revelation previously that it didn't matter what people ate, nevertheless, the Council ruled:

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." (vv. 19-21)

There was a binding involved here, using ecclesiastical authority to keep the new converts from eating food sacrificed to idols (even though the food itself was not bad; it's association with paganism would be), in an attempt to strengthen the body of Christ and keep the faithful on the straight and narrow path. The terms "binding and loosing" used by Jesus were understood by the Jewish people since they referred to rabbinical authority. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys (Peter) to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.

"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. " (Hebrews 13:17)

For more on the discipline of celibacy this link might prove helpful:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

 

[Caedmon]

Oh, by the way, where does it say that fasting isn't compulsory anymore?

I saw someone else say that in a post in OBOB.

 

[Bastoune]

I saw someone else say that in a post in OBOB.

Maybe they were confused about what kind of fasting? But abstaining from meat on Fridays during Lent is still in effect. (The Orthodox abstain during the whole period of Lent!) No one is demanding fasting for 40 days and 40 nights like Jesus did, however!

 

[Caedmon]

The thing that gets me, is that it seems like they pick and choose what they want to put into certain positions on the hierarchy of belief. Is it totally at their discretion which things are discipline, and which are doctrine?

 

[nyj]

I saw someone else say that in a post in OBOB.

They were mistaken. We are still required to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday of Lent.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a7.htm

Abstinence from meat is to be observed by all Catholic Christians age 14 years old and older on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday and on all the Fridays of Lent. In addition, by special permission from the holy Father, the Catholics in the United States are to either abstain from meat or do some other form of penance on all other Fridays of the year outside of Lent since Fridays are recognized as penitential days (1983 Canon 1250). Fasting is to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday by all Catholic Christians who are 18 years of age but not yet 59. Those who are bound by this may take only one full meal. Two smaller meals are permitted if necessary to maintain strength according to one's needs, but eating solid foods between meals is not permitted.

 

[Bastoune]

The thing that gets me, is that it seems like they pick and choose what they want to put into certain positions on the hierarchy of belief. Is it totally at their discretion which things are discipline, and which are doctrine?

I don't really see it as that way. We're talking things that help people stay on the str8 path, and focus (hence, why they're "disciplines") and ultimately benefit the whole Body of Christ.

The celibate priesthood has several advantages. Firstly, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage). This also makes it easier for priests to be transferred to different parishes where they are most needed without having to worry about the impact of their transfer on wife and children.

Also, historically, it meant that the priesthood was open to anyone, not just a "class" like the Levitical priests of Judaism. It protected the priesthood from such a "cast system" as well as from nepotism within the priesthood, if everything were based on family ties (although enough of that happened when the secular leaders tried to infiltrate the hierarchy of the Church with members of their families...)