Do you think priests should be allowed to marry?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Should catholic priests be allowed to get married? I ask because it would seem to me, that not having the option to do so, is actually a human rights violation. Am I wrong? Surely to deny anyone the right to decide for themselves, is to deny the basic of human rights. Please don't come back with the typical response of "they can choose to be a priest if they want". thanks,

-- naughty me (naughty_me@hehe.com), March 30, 2002

Answers

Catholic Priests are married, they are married to the church. And without giving the "typical" answer, They chose to give up their "Human Rights" to be married, by becoming a Priest. I am not Catholic, so correct me if I am wrong, but I think the reason behind it is because they give 100% of their devotion to the church, if they were to marry they wouldn't be able to do so.

Also, when two people join in matramony, aren't they giving up the right to court outside the marriage? I believe it is a choice one makes in life.

Therefore, if it was such an issue to Priest's they would not have chosen to become one.

If we are going to talk about "Human Right's", we can take a look at the women of Afghanastan. Here we have women who "WANT" to work, go to school, show their faces, have college degrees ect. HERE WE HAVE A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHT'S.

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 30, 2002.


I guess you didn't read my post. I specifically asked not to be "annoyed" by the same old response! Since you are not a catholic, and obviously not a priest, what inside knowledge could you possibly have? None. First become a catholic, get ordained, and then perhaps I will take your answer seriously. In the mean time, if anyone has anything of importance to add, I am listening.

-- naughty me (naughty_me@iamit.com), March 30, 2002.

I pulled up a old thread for you. It will be coming up to the top in a few min. It should have the answers you are looking for.

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), March 30, 2002.

A priest who has been ordained has taken the road of celibit as a free choice. This is a hard road for so many but as Christ stated marriage is not for all.

This applies to Orders of Priests and not Diocesan which are not an order but under the " rule " of their Bishop. Also many Diocesan priests do not take the vow of poverty resulting a many who call their brokers before morning mass.

As to human rights etc: I feel this does not apply as a priest who presents Christ on earth is " in this world but not of it. "

I attended a morals lecture once on this issue and the Paulist priest who was giving the seminar felt due to the high cost factor of maitinaining both wife and household - it will never come to pass.

What does concern me deeply is that some of the Apostles were married with daily responsibilities. It behooves me to think Christ would have chosen only young virgin men as this does not make sense.

HE Christ was the spotless lamb for the sacrifice not the chosen ones.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 30, 2002.


As another non-Catholic Christian, I must simply add that the priests know going into it what they are committing to. As Kathy pointed out, just as a person who gets married commits to a single person for the remainder of their lives, so the priest commits to the Church. It's a matter of a vow and the discipline to keep that vow.

Now, as I understand it, there is an order of priesthood in the Catholic Church that does allow marriage - is that correct guys? Is it the Eastern rite? I forget. Also, there are married ministers who convert to Catholicism who are allowed to remain married. Not sure how that works.

Those are the Catholic rules and they have a right to establish those rules if they want to. I personally think it limits those who are willing to join the priesthood and may be one of the reasons why the numbers of priests in seminaries in the U.S. have been dwindling so rapidly over the past 30 years, but again, that's the standard they chose to set, so those who agree to enter must comply.

Now if I making the rules (which I'm not of course, but IF), I would say 'yes' priests should be allowed to marry. In fact, I would say that it is indeed a God-given right to do so. And I say that so boldly because it is based on the words of Paul who said in 1 COR 9:5, "Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"

So in my view, if being married was a right for all of the apostles except for Paul and Barnabus (who's celebate calling the Catholic Church is emulating), then it should be a right for every priest.

But like I said, I don't make the rules for the Catholic Church, so the point is mute.

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), March 30, 2002.



What does it matter if I think yes or no-- let him marry, or he should be celibate?

It isn't up to a vote or referendum. It's up to the Holy Spirit who speaks to us through the Church. I find it offensive that a bystander should think he/she has any say in the matter. Did we question whether or not your mother and father ought to marry and raise children? For instance, raising YOU? Was Jesus Christ supposed to consult do-gooders like you; and inquire was it OK to ask of priests they not marry? Does He care what you think?

The previous poster was right. A priest has no obligation to take the vow of celibacy (chastity); he can remain a layman and marry. With the Church's blessing.

Priesthood is for unmarried men. They aren't slaves; they are free men, making a free decision. One which apparently doesn't sit well with busy-bodies.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 30, 2002.


Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 16:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at it's dissolution.

Marraige shall be entered into only with free and full consent of the intending spouses.

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.

Article 18:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

I think this should cover the human rights issue. Yes?

God Bless,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 30, 2002.


Howdy all,

Before I write, here's the EWTN answer to celibacy.

I feel like commenting on this, since I was very close to "signing up" not too long ago. I am now engaged, but I want to emphasize that I didn't feel "cheated" because I couldn't become a priest and marry. I would not have wanted to be both priest and husband.

Jean wrote:

Also many Diocesan priests do not take the vow of poverty resulting a many who call their brokers before morning mass.

Jean, I'm pretty certain that no Diocesan priest takes a vow of poverty. They make a vow of obedience and chastity to their Bishop and make a promise of celibacy to the Bishop. They "have a career," and must think of their retirement at the end of their career--the church doesn't automatically take care of them when they retire. Often, if there is room in the local parish, we will have a retired priest in addition to our three regular priests.

I don't know what you're insinutating when you talk about "many" priests calling their brokers before morning mass. I don't know about you, but I don't know what broker takes calls before 6:30 or 8:30 AM, since the bell doesn't ring in Wall Street until 9:30 AM. All silliness aside, I don't think it's sinful for me or my diocesan priest to own stock. They do receive a salary, and the priests I know tend to donate much of their pay back into the church for its support and support of local charity efforts.

The Orders, imitating the Church as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, require a vow of poverty. This means that I give all of my possessions to the Order when I enter. If I work as a professor, my salary goes to the Order. If I write a best-selling book, it goes to the Order. If my mom wants to send me a $20 for my birthday--you guessed--it goes to the Order. I'm sure that there are cynics out there, but this is an amazing life of detachment from worldly concerns!

Vow of Poverty or not, I don't know of any priests who choose their profession for the money! They'd be out of their minds.

Jean wrote:

I attended a morals lecture once on this issue and the Paulist priest who was giving the seminar felt due to the high cost factor of maitinaining both wife and household

Actually, your Paulist priest is hinting at one of the key reasons why celibacy is so helpful! Before the Latin Rite (and its orders) universally adopted a celibate priesthood, priests who had families found themselves "competing" for the churches collections. I can envision that the Church's enemies' charges of corruption (priests leaving Church property to children, etc) may have been one of the reasons why celebacy was adopted in the first place. Church outsiders now question the celebacy rule as if outside criticism had no part in the institution in the first place.

I've already commented that it's easier to imagine financial corruption and conflict of interest if priests marry. We need only look at our Protestant brothers and sisters to see that these problems, though not often illegal, put preachers into a situation in which the family finances are the church finances. Preach to gain a crowd, or Timmy and Jill don't eat. I have a close friend who left his position as pastor because of financial reasons--not because he didn't feel he had a "call" to preach the Gospel. We Catholics do not have this situation too often. Catholics leave the priesthood when they feel that they do not have a "true calling."

I'm happy that the Latin-Rite priesthood allows priests to dedicate their lives to all Catholics, and do not need to divide their concerns between church and family.

In the Bible, celibacy support comes from Matthew 19:12

For there are eunuchs [celibates] who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

Jean wrote:

What does concern me deeply is that some of the Apostles were married with daily responsibilities. It behooves me to think Christ would have chosen only young virgin men as this does not make sense.

Jean, could you (or anyone) show me in the Bible (or elsewhere) support for your statement: "some of the Apostles were married with daily responsibilities." I'm interested in what the Apostles say about this after they become followers of Jesus and begin their ministry.

Here's some corrections--Christ didn't only choose "young virgin men." Celibacy in the priesthood was a de facto rule before the Latin Rite adopted the rule.

Second, most men entering the priesthood today enter after 10-15 years as lawyers, engineers, accountants, marketing, teaching, mayors, just name it. To go to extremes, when I was young, one of my priests was a retired NFL football player! To the other extreme, a friend who is just entered the seminary has worked as a lawyer for immigrants. He could have made plenty in law, but already "took his vow of poverty" by the nature of the law which he practices. He knows that he wants to be a light for the world, just as Jesus wants for all of us. To emphasize my point, the recent highschool graduate is the rare exception in a seminary of men in their mid 20s to 40s.

Jean wrote:

HE Christ was the spotless lamb for the sacrifice not the chosen ones.

As priests especially, men use the Perfect Model for living that Christ gave us. No question--Jesus could never state that celibacy was a bad thing--He Himself practiced celibacy. No harm trying to imitate the Perfect Role-model...

non-Catholic Christian (David?) wrote:

Now, as I understand it, there is an order of priesthood in the Catholic Church that does allow marriage - is that correct guys? Is it the Eastern rite? I forget. Also, there are married ministers who convert to Catholicism who are allowed to remain married. Not sure how that works.

Almost...the Catholic Church consists of "Rites" that teach the same single Truth of Christ, while they may have different traditions because of their history. The religious orders that most associate with Catholicism (Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans, etc) came out of the Latin Rite of the Church. Other Rites in union with the Church are Eastern--these rites do not have a celibacy rule. These priests may marry, but only before becoming a priest--they may not "date" if they are single when they become priests! Because my family is from an Eastern Church and know of priests who are married.

You also brought up another fact, that the Catholic Church recognizes some churches outside of the Catholic Church to contain a valid priesthood. In the past, Anglican priests and other priests have been able to convert to Catholicism and remain married priests. Most protestants have pastors--not priests. Some pastors who convert to Catholicism give up their "pastor" title and assume a role as teacher/professor or other appropriate position, if the possibility exists to serve within the Church, so that they may continue using their work to serve the Kingdom of God.

non-Catholic Christian (David?) wrote:

So in my view, if being married was a right for all of the apostles except for Paul and Barnabus (who's celebate calling the Catholic Church is emulating), then it should be a right for every priest.

The Church teaches that those apostles who were married may have chosen to live a celibate lives when they accepted the call to become disciples and follow Jesus. I'll reiterate that the Catholic Church only makes priests take a formal vow of chastity, not celibacy. It is the Latin Rite whose bishops require priests to promise to be celibate. As a further point, it's worth noting that whether we choose priesthood, religious orders, marriage, or a single vocation, we must all live a chaste life. These priests make a formal vow only to reinforce the universal rule of chastity on all Christians.

Rejoice Christians, Jesus is Our Resurrected Lord! Have a blessed Easter!

Mateo.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2002.


More on celibacy.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2002.


St. Paul's support of celibacy for all Christians who freely choose celibacy. No doubt, this was the reason that priests chose a celibate life before the Latin Rite established its rule.

1 Cor 7:32-35

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord."

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2002.



More intersting Celibacy history from this website:

"Though also widely practiced since the beginning of the Church, celibacy was only introduced as a mandatory rule in the Western Church during the eleventh century as part of the reforms of Pope St. Gregory VII."

Look at the "Fourth objection" of the link above for commentary on the meaning of 1 Cor. 9:5.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2002.


Yet more info at this website.

Interesting debate between a Catholic and some evangelical Protestants. This is a detailed discussion of Paul, Peter, and the other Disciples and the Bible's discussions related to celibacy.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2002.


The human rights angle on this one is pretty laughable and perhaps a bit immature.
In the wake of the sexual abuse nightmare there is a discussion on celibacy that will not be ignored.
The Boston diosese own newsleter (not necessarily a liberal fishwraper) is calling for a dialogue.
There were reasons to institute celibacy nearly a thousand years ago and it may be a good idea to ask how well the concept is working today. I'm glad that they are at least considering weighing the plusses and the minusses. Decisions will be a long time coming and I have faith that answers that will improve the vocation's attraction will be directed by His will.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), March 31, 2002.

Mateo,

My understanding is that there is no historical basis for the belief that the apostles voluntarily or otherwise became celibate at any point in their lives in serving Christ Jesus. I believe I read that from noted Catholic theologian Raymond Brown, if I'm not mistaken.

And the scripture verse I quoted above from the Apostle Paul pretty clearly indicates that the apostles lived a normal married life and it was even their right to get married (and it didn't specify that it had to occur prior to becoming a priest).

I've heard of that belief before, so I did some digging into it a year or so ago and could not locate any historical reference myself to substantiate that. If you could provide one, that would be great.

I also know of an instance in which Augustine, in one of his letters, addresses a bishop of the church and mentions the man's wife without indicating it was anything but normal for the man to be married. Since that was sometime in the 400's A.D., the celibate/unmarried principle was apparently not passed down to the bishops as a requirement - which is also supported by the scripture verse indicating that a bishop can only have one wife.

Again, if they apostles and there heir apparents, the bishops, were expected to relinquish the married/celibate life, there's certainly no supporting scriptural evidence and with clear contrary evidence. I'd appreciate any references you could provide to substantiate your statement.

Thanks.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), March 31, 2002.


Hi David,

I hope you'll take the time to go through some of the Protestant/Catholic dialogs that are contained in the links that I've included above.

Here is some instructions from Jesus himself. We should abandon the idea that there is no Biblical support "the belief that the apostles voluntarily or otherwise became celibate at any point in their lives in serving Christ Jesus." We should agree that a number of passages, though not explicitly coming out and "saying it," offer a lot of support that the possibility exists that the Apostles became celibate.

Matthew 19:21, 27-29

Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." (vow of poverty)

Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, . . . every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Here, Jesus is stating that we must forsake everything and follow him. This includes family and even mentions "wife" (Greek gunee) explicitly. Here are some comments from a web site that I found:

"Peter said "all," and Jesus clearly recognizes the propriety of leaving even family (. . . and wives . . . ) in some instances of radical discipleship. But we do not rule out (in fact, we assume) the possibility of a mutual consent to separate, between Peter and his wife, in order for him to engage in ministry with Jesus. It doesn't have to be a wicked separation, where the spouse resists it. Otherwise Jesus could never sanction such a thing.

His [Peter's] wife could have joined him at certain times. One would expect that. It might be a bit like musicians going out on tour. Often they leave their families, for months at a time. At other times (while touring), they are joined by their wife and maybe children."

I reiterate that the Catholic Church does not hold a doctrine of celibacy for its priests, but all must vow to be chaste--there is a big difference between the two. I think there are plenty of practical reasons that back up why celibacy should remain. We should all agree that St. Paul explicitly states that celibacy should be the norm, and not the exception for those called to a priestly ministry. I don't think that there is a Protestant tradition that reflects the preference that St. Paul states in 1 Cor 7:7,8,38

I [Paul] wish that all were as I myself am [celibate and unmarried]. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.

So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

Reflecting St. Paul, the church believes that a celibate priesthood should be the norm. A celibate life should be praised by all Christians, as the Bible so clearly supports it.

Have a Blessed Easter!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2002.



Chris wrote:

In the wake of the sexual abuse nightmare there is a discussion on celibacy that will not be ignored. Do men who don't have adult women (or other men) to "service them" have a higher propensity to molest young boys? Would I have lost my attraction to women and began to lust after children if I had become a priest? Finally, where is the media outrage at pedophiles who are parents (married), teachers, and just about every other profession who has contact with children? Celibacy is never considered the reason for their sick behavior... Oh how we all want to be the first Pharisee to stone the adulterous woman...

The only reason that the connection exists between these two topics is that people outside the church who don't know a single priest like to express their opinions like an arm-chair quarterback. I don't care if 20,000 guys on their sofas opine on a way to get a first down, I'm still value the judgment of the quarterback and coaches. Similarly, we should value the opinions of those who are near the "crisis" to evaluate cause and effect.

My $0.02

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2002.


In case the formatting is confusing, Chris' quote in my previous post was the first sentence in italics. Sorry!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2002.


Perhaps if they married, they wouldn't spend all that time cornholing little boys. And you all wouldn't spend your time trying to ignore their crimes...

-- Dennis Molson (dennismolson@hotmail.com), March 31, 2002.

Dennis wrote:

Perhaps if they married, they wouldn't spend all that time cornholing little boys. And you all wouldn't spend your time trying to ignore their crimes...

Would you stop ignoring the rest of the pedophiles in the world? Who's in denial. I am interested in see all guilty pedophiles in jail, but obviously you only want the government to prosecute those who disagree with you. Dennis, I didn't know that you were such a fascist. Should justice only be applied when it serves your political needs?

That's just what Hitler and Stalin thought--they were also guided by their own "moral compass." I doubt that your fascist solution will eradicate pedophelia.

Mateo.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2002.


Mateo - very fine input for sure. I recall when in discernment for priesthood I had made a " decision " to not have sex of any nature. The process took about two full years to settle into my mind and body.

When this took place it was not hard for I came to a calmness in myself. Now that I am no longer studying for the priesthood I am going the other way which has been about a full five years.

It is only this past year I have looked at women sexually once again.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 31, 2002.


Dennis - PLease do allow yourself to express your thoughts as an adult.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 31, 2002.

"Do men who don't have adult women (or other men) to "service them" have a higher propensity to molest young boys?"
That would likely be a No.

"Would I have lost my attraction to women and began to lust after children if I had become a priest?"
That would also likely to be a No.

"Finally, where is the media outrage at pedophiles who are parents (married), teachers, and just about every other profession who has contact with children?"
That would be unrelated to the current Church crisis.

The simplistic nature of your questions would absolutly confirm your statement;"Similarly, we should value the opinions of those who are near the "crisis" to evaluate cause and effect."

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), March 31, 2002.


Mateo,

Thanks for responding. I'll respond to your scriptural inferences, but I also wanted to know if there was any historical basis. Any early church fathers write about this? You didn't mention anything along these lines and that was kinda what I was looking for.

Here's my responses to your statements:

Matthew 19:21, 27-29

Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." (vow of poverty)

OK, yes he did ask that young man to make a vow of poverty, but that didn't apply to all and Jesus didn't make that requirement to all of his followers.

Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, . . . every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Here, Jesus is stating that we must forsake everything and follow him. This includes family and even mentions "wife" (Greek gunee) explicitly.

No, that's not what he's saying. Jesus was providing an explanation not dictating a requirement. He never said anyone MUST forsake a wife. He simply explained that if, in the course of following after Christ it became necessary to leave the wife because it was prohibitive to obeying God, then the reward would be great. He in no way inferred or implied any such requirement on anyone or set any particular standard.

I do agree with the thought that Peter or others may have gone of on a missionary journey leaving behind wife while he was on the road, but he returned to them and functioned as a normal husband. To say otherwise is not substantiated.

Again, I'll simply appeal to the scripture I stated from Paul, he says taking a wife along was the apostlic RIGHT and it was practiced by the all of the other apostles - so NONE of the apostles except Barnabas and Paul left their wife permanently as testified to by Paul himself.

He could NOT claim it is a RIGHT if Jesus called the apostles to leave their wives, otherwise he would be preaching against Christ's commands.

Your attempt to infer such commands from these scriptures are not well-founded and not shared by theologians (I'm speaking of Catholic ones). Those scriptures cannot be interpreted that way.

We should all agree that St. Paul explicitly states that celibacy should be the norm, and not the exception for those called to a priestly ministry. I don't think that there is a Protestant tradition that reflects the preference that St. Paul states in 1 Cor 7:7,8,38

I [Paul] wish that all were as I myself am [celibate and unmarried]. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.

Well, as explained by respected Catholic theologian Raymond E. Brown in Priest and Bishop, there was no priestly ministry in the New Testament. They did not use that term. The ministerial titles were apostle, bishop, pastor, teacher, prophet, evangelist, deacon. The term priest did not come into use for some time after the apostles had died. So Paul would have ben speaking to someone other than priests.

Instead, he is clearly addressing ALL Christians, not just apostles, bishops, etc. He is simply explaining his preference that the freedom that a single lifestyle offers him in his ministry to the Lord and wishing that everyone would take that same sense of total devotion as he does. Again, he's addressing ALL Christians, not just ministers here. And he obviously acknowledges that such a requirement can ONLY come from God (as a "special gift") and must not be a requirement for ministry. In fact, he specifically states against the possibility of making it a requirement.

Protestants recognize this as stated in scripture, as a special gift from God, that is birthed and maintained between the indivdual and God. There are many among Protestants who are intentionally single in order to serve God, the are just quiet about it and do not belong to any group or anything. I have encountered some over the years.

I won't argue that Paul is correct in saying that a single lifestyle is ideal for total service to God and has many benefits. But I also agree with Paul that man should not place such a requirement on someone - that is must start as a special gift from God - which, by the way, is the same approach that Jesus spoke about with regard to eunichs. Jesus said it was difficult and required a special gift from God to maintain.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), March 31, 2002.


Daer David B--
There's no need to justify something like this from Holy Scripture alone, or support it in every instance. It is enough to gather from the Bible many good men had ocassion to remain celibate. Our Lord's own virginity and celibacy readily establishes how holy this vocation can be; and it is only the Catholic Church who will make it or unmake it a priestly requirement. Not a referendum of the people at large, nor opinions from the left.

Since it isn't a given that celibacy corrupts a priest sexually, I find it disingenuous for the arm-chair psychologists to pronounce on this so eagerly. They ought to save their polls and suggestions for the Boston Globe. It will be better appreciated there than in our Catholic forum.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 31, 2002.


Hello, Chris Coose.

You said, " Do men who don't have adult women (or other men to ) " Service them " have a higher propensity to molest youn boys? ".

You comment, " servicing them " was not a good choice of words to me. This is a beatiful act that God created for husband and wife, and to keep the world producing. You make it sound like a man is getting his oil changed or his car worked on. Man and wife become one when this act is performed what God made it for.

This is a gay problem. If a man is ordained a Priest, than he has choosen to live a celibant life. I know in my heart that if a man does not have sex, than it is not going to make him sexually atracted to other men. It does not make sense. Going without sex does not make someone a homosexual.

If the celibant problem was the issue, than don't you think the priests would of went after Lady's or girls. They did whatever to youngmen past puberity.

I know I asked you this before, but it is a good example to me. When you were over in Vietnam and not around so many women, did the men in the foxwholes look any different to you? No of course not, so don't you see the point? One has nothing to do with another!

God bless you.

David S

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), March 31, 2002.


David,

Just some quick points. I appreciate your comments. If you read the links, they give you an interesting discussion of the translation problems of the Greek term for "woman/wife." In the passage (1 COR 9:5,

"Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"

The Greek word for wife (gune) can mean either "wife" or "woman". I won't argue someone else's points, but please refer to this link. According to the link, this passage is also translated as:

"Have we not a right to take about with us a woman, a sister, as do the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"

Look to the link for the arguments on each side.

Again, I'll reiterate that my support for celibacy is firmly based in the practical reasons for a celibate priesthood and support found in the bible. The Catholic does not have a universally celibate priesthood--something that I identified as soon as I got on the thread.

I think that Protestants have a difficult problem to deal with on this issue, because the single-minded unmarried preacher that St. Paul recommends is the exception, not the standard. St. Paul not withstanding, I base this belief on my personal relationships with Protestant pastors.

David writes:

there was no priestly ministry in the New Testament.

Two points:

1) Although they played the "bad guys," the Jewish Priesthood was not something that Jesus had on the chopping block. Jesus questioned their belief, but I don't think he ever abolished them. Please show me if I'm wrong on this.

2) A simple search of the RSV gets this passage from Romans 15:15-17

But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God.

There it is--St. Paul ministers to the Gentiles in priestly service...priestly ministry.

I also realize that the priesthood is not the only calling that people receive. So among all of the ministries that a Catholic can choose from, becoming a priest or religious brother/sister may include the promise of remaining a chaste single. This in no ways closes all of my options for ministry.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2002.


Chris Coose,

You wrote:

The simplistic nature of your questions would absolutly confirm your statement...

It sounds like you're putting me down with this response; but this begs the question, would you rather I made my points by obfuscateing my point? ;-)

Chris, do you think celibacy causes a change in the incidence of pedophilia?

David S,

I initially responded to Chris' post saying:

"In the wake of the sexual abuse nightmare there is a discussion on celibacy that will not be ignored."

I responded sarcastically:

Do men who don't have adult women (or other men) to "service them" have a higher propensity to molest young boys?

The words that you criticize were mine. I was (not too successfully?) posting a sarcastic reply to a statement that infers that the celibacy rule is somehow the cause of sexual abuse. I don't think anyone has real proof that even hints at a causal relationship.

Peace,

Mateo el sarcástico

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2002.


Chris C.

I am sorry for saying it was you, that made the bad choise of words. So please skip, that part of my post. I still mean the rest of the post to you though. :) David S

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), March 31, 2002.


Some more comments for non-Catholic Dave...your comments are in bold:

I'll respond to your scriptural inferences,

Just to beat this horse a little more, after some more searching, I found the following Apocraphal text from the "Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Andrew."

"And there was a certain rich man in the city, by name Onesiphorus. He, having seen the miracles done by the apostles, says to them: If I believe in your God, can I also do a miracle like you? Andrew says to him: If thou wilt forsake all that belongs to thee, and thy wife and thy children, as we [Peter and Andrew] also have done, then thou also shalt do miracles. When Onesiphorus heard this, he was filled with rage, and took his scarf and threw it over Andrew's neck, and struck him, and said to him: Thou art a sorcerer. How dost thou force me to abandon my wife, and my children, and my goods? Then Peter, having turned and seen him striking Andrew, says to him: Man, stop now striking Andrew. Onesiphorus says to him: I see that thou art more sensible than he. Do thou then tell me to leave my wife, and my children, and my goods. What dost thou say? Peter says to him: One thing I say unto thee: it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to go into the kingdom of heaven"

As far as the references to Peter and the other apostle's state, I've mentioned some scriptures, as have you. I don't think either of us has disproved the other's points. We both simply see that the scriptures may have hints to support either position. These points (about what the apostles left behind after choosing to follow Jesus) are not something I dwell on...I'm probably not alone! I do think that the links that I've placed have some interesting points, though.

but I also wanted to know if there was any historical basis. Any early church fathers write about this? You didn't mention anything along these lines and that was kinda what I was looking for.

When you asked about early support, I thought that you meant Biblical support! :-)

Tertullian (~207 AD) reiterates the points of St. Paul--celibacy is preferable to marriage in general.

From the net, I found that:

"On the ascetic tendencies of the second and third centuries, and the gradual introduction of clerical celibacy (which began with a decree of Bishop Siricius of Rome, 385)" Schaff, Church Hist., vol. ii.

I'll infer that this decree was not much more than a recommendation. This statement also supports what I believe to be common knowledge--many Christians chose a life of celibacy as a precursor to the resurrection. One thing that I haven't mentioned is that the Bible tells us that we do not continue marriage in Heaven. This is despite a common romantic ideal as a place for lovers to spend eternity. This, according to Vatican II, is a living sign of the children of the resurrection who "shall neither be married nor take wives." Luke 20:34,35:

"And Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage"

Still refering back to the wife/woman translation problem, here is yet another link that argues that 1 Cor 9:5 does not refer to a wife. I also bring this link up because it refers to a number of Church Fathers including Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Jerome, and Isidor of Pelusium. What are your thoughts on the quotes?

BTW, I'm not an expert on the Church Fathers' writings. Have you taken classes and/or studied them on your own?

Christ's peace,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 01, 2002.


David,

I just wanted to comment on someone you keep refering to:

"Well, as explained by respected Catholic theologian Raymond E. Brown in Priest and Bishop"

His book "Priest and Bishop" came out in 1971, and he taught at Protestant Union Theological Seminary in New York for 23 years. He died of a heart attack in 1998.

Here is a link with some comments on his fidelity to the Catholic Church's teachings.

While you mention that he is a respected theologian, you don't say who respects his theology. I will tell you that most all of the information I could find about him were documents that use his quotes to attack Catholic teachings. This is not something I would be proud of as a theologian...unless I were Protestant. :-)

He tends to explain away all of the miraculous events of the New Testament. He denies or questions the questions the virginal conception of Jesus, Jesus' physical Resurrection, and the Transfiguration. I assume that you would agree with me that a theologian who denies these basic beliefs is not someone we should put a lot of credence in as Christians.

To underline this pattern of doubting all miracles, another Catholic theologian states:

"Brown leaves his audience, if not himself, ?in a squirrel cage running round and round in a circle always returning to the same place, doubt."

In Christ,

Mateo el fiel

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 01, 2002.


More on Fr. Raymond Brown

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 01, 2002.


Mateo,
I'm not talking about pedophilia. The current crisis would better be described as the sexual abuse of children (18 and under).
This is a sexual issue and celibacy is a major sexual component of the priesthood. Some, myself included, might consider that connection enough. More shall be revealed.
I would agree with many good Catholics who I shared Easter dinner with, clergy whom I've spoken with and the editorial in the Pilot (the Boston Diosese newsletter) that the issue needs a looking at, all in the interest of creating an atmosphere of attraction to the priesthood.


-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), April 01, 2002.

Chris

The abuse issue has been well spoken on the news media as a sexual offense situation by the priests and others. It is quite clear that the issue is not a pedophile issue at all. For some reason people just cannot get their facts in order. Most of the cases being talked about are offences toward the young adults not towards the under 10 year old range. Most offences have been to teen aged youths. I am saying here is that your comments are correct. We need to put more effort to get people to realize where the real problem is.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 01, 2002.


Chris,

I think we can both agree that a proactive firing/prosecuting of those who are guilty of abusing children will help increase the number of people who answer true vocations, because these new priests won't have to accept the sins of another.

I don't doubt that celibacy is a radical statement in today's world, and many people don't understand why anyone would choose celibacy. St. Paul told Christians that celibacy is normal and healthy for Christians. This guy was teaching in some of the most hedonistic societies that have existed. I mention this because some people think that celibacy was initially promoted in a vacuum, without any knowledge of societies who promote the unrestricted use of sexuality. It seems that the times of Jesus and the apostles didn't provide some fantasy ivory tower of purity from which to speak on sexual morality. We live in similar times--post sexual revolution--when many people realize the consequences of debauchery. Experience from the effects of the 60s and 70s teach the same story of the Bible--show respect for sexuality.

You wrote:

I'm not talking about pedophilia. The current crisis would better be described as the sexual abuse of children (18 and under).

According to dictionary.com, pedophilia is "The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children." I think that you are saying that abuse can often be characterized as homosexual statutory rape of teens. The forbidden fruit of teenagers is glorified by Hollywood (Just watch "American Beauty"), yet I've never heard an outcry that the movie shows a married man pursuing the affections of his daughter's teenage friend. It's amazing how accepting the media is of movie's portrayals of behavior that is both not accepted by society and illegal.

Though you and others may believe that celibacy is an unwelcome burden that hinders many to the priesthood, I think that the Latin Church would be ignoring the wisdom of why it asks for celibacy in the first place. The Church would just be setting itself up to repeat the errors that it has already corrected in the past.

Various Solutions?

If you are arguing that allowing married priests would fill all the priest shortages, I'd like you to look at the experiences of other churches that recently (last couple 100 years) opened their priesthood to married priests. I don't have the details, but I don't believe that Anglicans' and Episcopalians' experiences are not very convincing--if you had a chart of the number of seminarians before and after the opening up, I doubt that you'd see a bump. They don't have an easy time in recruiting priests--keep in mind that in addition to women and married priests, the priests have a carte blanche to interpret whatever they want in the Bible, or so it appears. This neither solves the "shortage problem" nor strengthens the faith of the flock. The Church of England's "home-turf" is at the forefront of Church atrophy in England. To be fair, heterodoxy of Catholic priests can't be helping the situation in Europe either...

Just to round things out, Priests are not the only instruments that Catholics have in spreading the Good News. Shortage or not, we all called to spread the message of Jesus. By doing our part, we are directly fostering the vocations of those close to us. Paraphrasing Sen. Clinton, "It takes a parish to raise a priest."

My opinions,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 01, 2002.


I would like to turn this around a bit.

I know of several married Catholic men, of good standing, doing God's work in their church, and doing all that they are permitted to do in the Church. These are real good priest canidates. But they are disqualifed by being good husbands too. If the 11 Century ban was changed, some of these would be the flood of priests that would result. These are already deacons in their parishes. They are the good result of getting the layity more involved in their parish.

I am not talking unbacked theory here. In the EC church, people who are called into a deaper relationship with Jesus later in their lives are given the chance to develop it, even into being a priest. And the EC church does pay a cost of supporting the wife, both in time allowed (single people do have more time for the job) and in money needed to support a couple. But when we pay it, we seem to have more priests then we need.

Not one of the priest/priest canidates in our parish would have been considered by the RC. One was a atheist until late in life, got the call, became a priest. Would not likely have done so with the celebecy option. One is presently married and going to seminary. One spent years as a monk, loves to preach, often preaches a great sermon at our parrish, but flunked the priest screening when confronted with the fact that being a priest involves administration work too. And one was female, but that is another can of worms that we should not get into in this post.

We do have so many that we are not despreate. If there is a bucket full of canidates for a small number of jobs, maybe, maybe, the screening can be more selective. If there is a bucket full of jobs and few workers, every worker must be tried to see if they would qualify for something.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), April 01, 2002.


...And I am talking about a small EC parish, less than 100 familys.

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), April 01, 2002.

I may have to clarify that every church that I have been a member of, and every church in my diocese:

1) Has at least 3 priests, sometimes four if they house a retired priest.

2) Have a lot of support from lay Catholics.

My current church has 10 men in various seminaries. I would have been #11. This does not include those studying to be brothers/sisters.

I realize that I'm completely blessed by these facts. I humbly submit that the relaxation of celibacy doesn't create a wealth of vocations...faithful non-wishy-washy teaching creates a wealth of priestly vocations.

We could make an argument for celibacy if we could prove that:

1) Other Catholic and non-Catholic churches had a noticeable change in vocation rates when they removed the celibacy requirement.

2) We are ready to face the facts that the married priests have financial interests at odds with those of the church. The church wants a consistant faithful teacher, the married priest/pastor wants to fill the seats to send his kids to college. I'm not terribly interested in this situation.

Let's not forget other advise that pop-culture has told us: that the introduction of the birth control pill would reduce the incidence of abortions and would increase marital fidelity. We have to realize that as much logic as common sense might have, this does not protect us from unintended consequences.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 01, 2002.


IMHO celibacy and sexual orientation does not merit pedophilia or sexual abuse.

Also, some of these sex offender cases in Mass. were of pedophilia nature, specifically John Geoghan. How do I know? Because one of the families (whom I know very well) began at the age of 10, he being the oldest, with three more younger brothers and the youngest a sister. They were not of teenage years. Another friend of mine also abused at the age of 10 by "Paquin". There are more whom I know in my town who are/were directly affected at an age under 10. But, not all cases are the same, so they should not all be categorized as pedophilia, but sex offenses.

I also believe that the relentless media coverage has to do with several things;

1. Mass. is prodominatly catholic, as are alot of the reporters. 2. It has been coverd up for years, thus a scandal evolved. 3. Priests' are looked at as people who do not sin, they spread the Holy word. Apparently we have forgotten that they are humans.

Unfortunatly, the fact remains that alot of harm has been done to hundreds of children. Seems the media has forgotten about them.

But, to say that these abuses took place because of celibacy or sexual orientation, I don't for a minute believe that. The ones who have been found guilty have "sick" tendencies. And these offenders should be punished and not let off or forgiven of their crime just because they have gone through a treatment program, most of which cannot show a significant success rate.

The likelihood of recidivism, "among child molester, those with male victims have been found to have the highest recidivism rates, followed by those with unrelated female victims". To see more about recidivism; www.johnhoward.ab.ca/docs/sxoffend/cover.htm.

None of us can claim to have all the answers as to why it happened, and I would not be surprised if some of the Priest who did abuse, were themselves abused. We can not deny there is a serious problem here, however the Catholic Church needs to begin their healing, as do the victims. This is a crime that is world wide, by all walks of life, it is not a selective crime by celibate/homosexual men that only takes place in the Catholic Church by Priest.

For those who have taken enjoyment from this "scandal" because they are anti-catholic bashers are SICK.

And for you Dennis, might I suggest a thesaurus if you are at a lack for a better term than Co#*ho*&.

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), April 01, 2002.


My last post was meant for a differnt thread "Celibacy". Sorry if there is any confusion. God Bless,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), April 01, 2002.

Kathy

For information purposes only, I would like to mention to you the Daughters of Isabella as the organization for women which is the female organization which is similar to the KofC. It is a small organization as most women tend to keep within the family phase of the KofC. The role and set up of the KofC is NOT to be compared in any manner to the Masons at all. In fact it is the abuse of the Masons towards the Catholics that the KofC was organized by a Priest, Father Michael McGivney in New Haven Ct. before the turn of the century to assist men in protecting widows and their families of Catholic gentlemen. I personally do identify with your comments on habitual gamblers. It is not the fault of the KofC but the person themselves. It is hard to prevent these people from doing what they do as it is. All we can do is pray and try to help them realize what they are doing in a gentle manner.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 01, 2002.


Hi Fred,

I would never hold the K of C responsible for this persons actions. It is a self inflicted crime.

I don't believe I've ever heard of the Daughter's of Isabella.

Fred, I hope you had a wonderful Easter.

God Bless,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), April 01, 2002.


I appreciate all the intelligent theological insights, but what about real life? I don't mean to be picky, but I wonder if anyone really understands the full picture, I mean the real day to day experience. I am sure we are all familiar with the old saying one cannot know fully till one has lived the life.

-- naughty me (naughty_m@hehe.com), April 01, 2002.

Naughty me,

While some of my answers are biblical, most of my arguments above support celibacy for practical reasons. The practical reasons make the argument for me, not the "theological" reasons. I haven't heard anyone disagree with the practical reasons...I'm curious if anyone contests these practical reasons.

Peace,

Mateo el Feo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 01, 2002.


" There was no Priestly ministry in the New Testament ". David said.

No text of the NT gives the names of priest to any of the responsible for the Church. But Jesus reserve in using the title is so great that His silense is scarcely conclusive. Jesus makes His own people participants in His priesthood; but in the NT, as the OT,this priesthood of the people of God can be exercised concretley only through ministers called by God.

Young man, it is a established fact, that Jesus called the twelve in order to entrust them with the responsibilities of His Church. He prepared them for the service of the world; He transmitted to them some of His powers ( Mt.10,8.40; 18,18 ); and on the last evening He confided to them the Eucharist ( Lk 22,19). These are specific participations in His priesthood. Wouldn't you agree?

The apostles understand this David, and in their turn establish a group of men responsible for continuing their action. Some of these men bear the title as elders, which is the orgin of the present name of priests ( presbyters: Ac 14,23; 20,17;Tt 1,5). Paul's reflection upon the apostolate and charisms is already directed toward the priesthood of the Church's ministers. To those responsible for communities he gives priestly titles: " keepers of the mysteries of God " (1 CO 4,1f)," ministers of the new covenant " (2 Co 3,6 ); and he descibes apostolic preaching as a liturgical service (R 1,9; 15,15f). Here is the starting point for further explicitations of the ministerial priesthood. This is not a established caste of privledged men. Nor does it detract either from the unique priesthood of Christ or from the priesthood of the faithful. But, in the service of both, it is one of the faithful. But, in the service of both, it is one of the mediations ensuring the service of the people of God.

God bless you.

David S

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), April 02, 2002.


Mateo, So there is no crisis in the number of new priests in the Catholic Church? A priest I know disagreed and said that his (sub-sub??)order is dying from a lack of new priests: he is the youngest and still is above the US retirement age. My response was that the Catholic church has benifited by involving the layity, but this kind of result is too much, too sad.

I like your arguements that preaching the Gospel well and without comprimise will stir the people. And if they are young and not currently planning to marry then you will get new priests. But you are still eliminating a population that is eager, this being your current married deacons. And many of them would come forward, they are so primed to do so. Their life experiance is valuble, sometimes more so than an untried young colt. The real problem I suspect is that they would overwelm your seminarys with their numbers. But some kinds of problems are good to have.

But I now write to counter my arguements. There are arguements not raised by anyone yet that need to be considered. If you have married priests, you will get the troubles that have been with married men everywhere. Divorced Priests. Family troubles, maybe abusive men. Drunks that take down their own familys as well as the parish. Whatever. It is not like these ills are not documented in the general population. Hopefully careful screening would eliminate the worst and most obvious, but some problems grow slow. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), April 02, 2002.


Mateo, I like your practical answers idea. But if considered as a change, and the question would be what would this change cost the Church, the answer is already avaliable. Just go to an Episcopal/Anglican Catholic church and ask what are the benifits, and what are the costs of doing it this way. I do not deny that there are costs. But the whole social experiment has been done, the results are in, and available to all. They are a bit mixed up in a different govermental structure, and a few other changes, but I suspect they are easily seperated out. The changes do produce a viable structure, though a different one. Once you have seen the cost/benifits of this change, you can argue for or against it using the real world facts. For me, I like it. Some of our best preachers have some life experience under them, sometimes decades of it. (Yes priests do get such, sometimes in bucket loads, but different kinds). (yes we do still get real turkeys for preachers too.) And it allows those who find a call to the priesthood late in life to answer it. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanEarlyAug@juno.com), April 02, 2002.

Kathy, I tend to agree with you. Maybe there should be a counseling system in the Church. I suspect that there may already be one for AA types that become priests, tell me if this is so.

I am wondering if a more selective screening of priests would (have) helped.

The Church's head in the sand public stance really did not help. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), April 02, 2002.


Hi Sean,

Thanks for your posts. Here's some quick replies:

Catholic Church and Married Priests

My family's Rite does allow married priests. I'm 100% certain that there is no doctrinal issue. The experiences that the Protestants, Orthodox, and the Eastern Catholic Rites have with married priests/pastors is the basis from which I form my personal opinion that single-only priesthood is good.

I do not believe that a married priesthood would cause a flood of seminarians, nor do I believe that a flood of applicants would be bad. Yale, Harvard and MIT always get many times more applicants than they can handle. They never complain.

Shortage

I'd be ignoring a lot of facts if I said there wasn't a shortage. But let me give you another "Parable of Mateo el Feo."

The US produces so much food that It could feed the whole world if a distibution system was in place. As it is, the US destroys all of the surplusses that our Department of Agriculture subsidizes. But then you go to Africa, and whole tribes are dying because of two reasons: they are unable to produce the food to feed themselves; and the food that arrives from outside is immediately taken by one faction in the hopes of starving their enemies.

Switch the countries...the 3rd world has a high number of priests and seminarians, while most of America "starves." Parts of America are able to provide priests. In other areas, dissidents who see the church as backward attack their own priesthood with stereotypes, discouraging their young men from the idea of the priesthood. Then the dissidents cry out, "We have no priests! Let's open the priesthood up to everyone!" And the starving flock doesn't have the will to disagree.

Well, that's my little parable...hahaha.

Anyway, let me tell you that I had a strong desire to be a priest. I made a deliberate effort to see if the priesthood was what God wanted for me. I found that God called me to be a husband (and hopefully a parent!) Despite my personal desire to serve as a priest, I'll never live a day in regret because I know that I've chosen the life that God wants for me. I know that Catholics are all called to minister and spread the Gospel.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 02, 2002.


Hi Sean,

If you are referring to the screaning of Priest's reguarding the sexual offense nature, I don't know how effective that would be.

1. Sexual offenders come in all forms, there is no particular sexual orientation, race or gender one has in order to be an offender.

2. Unless there is a 51A report or a complaint on file, there is no way of knowing if one is a sexual predator.

3. If there is a 51A report filed, it is best to keep them as far away as possible from children, rehabilitation is not a guarentee. In fact the success rate is very low.

To think one has been rehabilitated is taken a risky chance. It is like an alcoholic working as a bartender, the temptation is in your face and can be more powering than ones will to sustain.

Furthermore, I think that anyone working with children, not just Priest should have a thorough background check, our children are a gift from God and we should always go through great lenghts to keep them protected from harm.

My opinion of course.

God Bless,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), April 02, 2002.


Thanks Kathy.

Just to follow-up. In my Diocese (I don't think we're alone) all personnel who work with children (including CCD teachers) are required to attend a program that lays out the behavior that the Church expects. I think this is a pro-active step in the right direction.

Sadly, there will never be a perfect screening process for any position that involves interactions with children. We must all be pro-active and vigilant against sexual predators in our entire society.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 02, 2002.


Well said Mateo,

I don't know where in the east you live, but in Mass. where I am from, there is controversy about the registry of sexual offenders (of all types). The offenders feel as though their rights are being violated and the could/would be victims do not want them living in their neighborhood. But something must be done.

God Bless all of your children,

One more thing, we will never no how many are out there (predators) because so often these crimes go unreported.

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), April 02, 2002.


Mateo and Kathy, I was meaning psychological screening. It has gotten better, tho I do not know how better, and may pick up something. Not racial, etc what you mentioned.

Mateo, I do not mind that you have your own opinion, and you seem to have good reasons of your own about married priests. But you have never replied to my arguements about recruitment population. So I will restate it using an analogy: the military and the draft. In peacetime I will never be drafted. I am over age. In war time they will draft the young and the single first. This is the same as the population that the Catholic Church gets its priests out of. The military can take 100%, the Church must take volenteers, which lowers the percentage greatly. Lets say that the church gets .1% of that population. In great need (War) the military will start taking older and married men, then older men, then anyone. The EC church can and does recruit its priests from the young and unmarried population, and also from those that turn to Christ when either old and/or married. This is a second population from the RC church's viewpoint, one that they are forbidden to recruit from. It is a fertile field for recruitment. As I have said, there are now Catholic layity that are really active. Many of theses are in that second population of old, married, or both. I have seen some active layity that would be wonderful canidates for the priesthood. They all are second population types. Even if this creates a one time surge, that surge will be needed, I have been told.

Your analogy of the food in America vs the priests in Africa/Ireland/etc. maybe right. What it seems that you are saying is that there is not a world wide Catholic priest shortage, just a distribution problem. What the EC missionarys in south america have told me is that there are Catholic populations down there that do not hear the Word often enough, that they are ripe for anyone to preach to them and take over the responsibiltiys. ((no it is not a stolen sheep, it followed me home, can I keep it :-), yeah, right )So it is not just North america. From what I have heard, there is a real problem. You are saying that world wide there is not? Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), April 04, 2002.


Sean wrote:

Mateo, I do not mind that you have your own opinion,

Thank you! :-)

Sean wrote:

and you seem to have good reasons of your own about married priests.

At the risk of boring everyone, I'll reiterate that my background is from an Eastern Rite that has married priests. My beliefs are based on the observations of other churches around me. I have no doubt that some will come to the conclusion that I have come to, while others will conclude the opposite.

Sean wrote:

But you have never replied to my arguements about recruitment population.

In a nutshell, my belief is that the Latin Rite should not be expecting a flood of men to come to the priesthood if/when they allow married men to join up. We haven't even considered the poor priests that will feel cheated when they find out that they can't marry after ordination! :-)

Just out of curiousity, Sean, do you have any statistics for the Episcopal Church's priest population before and after women were allowed to become priestesses?

Anyway, the only thing that we can do to fill the seminaries is to support the vocation: through prayer to God and through the encouragement of young men. We want these men to want to give themselves completely to the Church.

Another strange phenomena is this--I have met a LOT of ordered priests (non-diocesan) who teach in high schools and colleges and don't serve as pastors. This is great for them, but if the Church need shephards, we've got them--some are just hiding! These men should be serving the faithful, IMHO.

Sean wrote:

You are saying that world wide there is not?

I know that priests are in short supply in many parts of the world. I have travelled a lot to Latin America, and other areas of the world, and have a pretty good sense for how Christianity is doing. Thankfully, all Catholics are responsible for the spreading of the Gospel--and many take this responsibility seriously. As Catholics take ownership of their duty to live the Christian faith and encourage it in others, we will see a lot of men enter the seminaries.

It is our responsibility to be counter-cultural and encourage young men to consider their vocation. As difficult as that solution is, it is the only solution that has any chance of succeeding...but that's only my opinion.

Mateo.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 04, 2002.


me: But you have never replied to my arguements about recruitment population.

"In a nutshell, my belief is that the Latin Rite should not be expecting a flood of men to come to the priesthood if/when they allow married men to join up. We haven't even considered the poor priests that will feel cheated when they find out that they can't marry after ordination! :-)

Huh? if all priests can marry before joining, we should open the others to the same. Also the few priests that have left to be married should be invided back.

Just out of curiousity, Sean, do you have any statistics for the Episcopal Church's priest population before and after women were allowed to become priestesses? "

I do not, nor do I know how to. We call them priests, as the armed forces call women officers "sir" (if I have been told correctly). Since we did not have a too few priest problem (rather the reverse, if anything at all), and because the initial women did face resistance and create a fuss, it is unlikely that there was a rush of applicants. Also, there is a problem finding a post, once through, and the seminarys are turning away applicants, more applicants could be a problem, not a solution. Rather the reverse of the RC.

I have identified 3 populations (young&unmarried, all other layity, married ex-priests) that can be drawn from if the rule will change. Two of these populations are primed: the layity now acting as deacons and the married ex-priests. Both would likely immediately bring forth this fruit of the spirit, long unharvested. After that first rush all would taper off. The third population would not exist, the recruitment rates would be the same percent of the now larger (pop 1 and pop 2 combined) recruitable population, in my opinon. How else could it be? Why would that be different? Actually both you and I had our RC time of deciding to be priests, and because we were either called to be married, or did not want to give up the possibility of that call, we declined. Had we not had to make that choice, there would be now two more priests were there is just 2 religious people. So I feel that the percent recruited from the recruitable population would go up, and that the total recruitable population would go up, and each increase might be a doubling of recruits.

Where is the flaw in my math? Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), April 05, 2002.


Sean wrote:

Huh? if all priests can marry before joining, we should open the others to the same. Also the few priests that have left to be married should be invided back.

Do you want the priests to "date"? Where would they "pick up" women...at Church singles events? :-)

Question for you: can single Episcopal priests date? The Orthodox Church and Eastern Rite Churches don't allow for single priests to marry. What is your precedent?

Statistics

Sean wrote:

"I do not, nor do I know how to [get statistics]. Since we did not have a too few priest problem...Where is the flaw in my math?"

I think we both agree that statistics from other churches would be more helpful than just our logic about why/why not. I think that the Latin Church should consider past experiences before it makes a big change. I agree that your reasoning seems to indicate that we could solve the priest shortage with your solutions. I don't think this logic is enough, though. As a parallel, the birth control pill was introduced as a solution to improve marital fidelity and bliss, eradicate the need for abortion, and decrease infidelity. These were the logical conclusion of those who introduced the pill, and many people believed the logic. Sometimes, unintended consequences outweigh the benefits.

Sean wrote:

"Actually both you and I had our RC time of deciding to be priests and because we were either called to be married, or did not want to give up the possibility of that call, we declined."

Actually, I discerned my call by deciding what vocation would better allow me to glorify God. If I really had a problem with my decision, I could have joined up as an Eastern Rite priest. I don't live a day in regret. BTW, by this statement, are you saying that you converted to the EC and became a priest, or am I just reading into this?

Sean wrote:

Had we not had to make that choice, there would be now two more priests were there is just 2 religious people.

What's wrong with being a religious person? :-)

Sean wrote:

"So I feel that the percent recruited from the recruitable population would go up, and that the total recruitable population would go up, and each increase might be a doubling of recruits."

You are truly an optimist. My argument is that the "shortage" issue is not the problem. I think I've explained myself coherently. Allowing married priests doesn't address the problem. It's like putting a band-aid over a leper's ulcer. It covers up the problem, but we should cure the disease that causes the problem. If all priests clearly taught the Church's teachings and avoided "appeasing" the believers by hiding Truth and teaching their opinions, the Church would have no shortage of recruits. OK, so you're an optimist and I'm an idealist! :-)

All my best!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 05, 2002.


Dear Sean,

As I recall from reading the life of Francis of Asissi, over forty years ago, here's something you may find interesting.

Saint Francis travelled to Rome for an audience with the Pope; he hoped to receive permission to found the order of the Friars Minor. (Franciscans, I call them.) He had no problem getting this, as I recall. By then, even the Pope knew Saint Francis was a holy man, if not yet canonised a saint. The Pope also wanted Francis to be ordained a priest. But Francis respectfully declined. He did not wish to be a priest; and in his humble way, he already felt called to be a Brother. Not only to his order, but even to the birds and animals. We are all familiar with the many stories about this great saint. --We also know that Francis was blessed with the holy stigmata of Our Lord; identifying with Jesus to such an extent that he shared with Him the wounds of His holy crucifixion.

I am contemplating how Francis would have answered Our Lord; if the Lord had called him to the holy priesthood? Francis gave a reigning Pope of the Catholic Church a solemn and humble refusal. Would he have refused Jesus Christ? I hope no one ever thinks so. He would have been overjoyed to accept, if Jesus could be pleased with him. He loved Jesus Christ with an immense and holy fire!

Yet, Francis did not hear any call to become a priest; to enter into the Holy of Holies by ordination. He reamained for the remainder of his life a humble, holy man, and the Little Brother, Fratello, we all know and love. Not even the Pope could call Francis to the priesthood!

God calls priests. Not men; not recruiters, and not even the Church. Only God.

There has to be a good reason for the so-called shortage of priests, My Friends. A reason known to God; why He has called many fewer men in western society. There is no shortage of ordained priests; there is a shortage of vocations! God is not calling you or me, and a single man or a married man; and not calling women. God has never called a woman. He called Saint Joan of Arc to lead armies; but not to become a priest! Why didn't He call Our Blessed Mother, or Saints Martha and Mary, nor Saint Catherine of Siena (who raised a man from the dead)--?

Because He works His own Divine Will. And it has nothing to do with being married, single or recruited-- at all! Recruits are for enlistment. Ordination is not an enlistment, or a career move. It's a call from God.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 05, 2002.


Gene, That was very well said! If you ever write a book, please let me know, because I want to read it. :-) God bless you. David S

-- David S (asdzxc8176@ail.com), April 05, 2002.

Mateo

Your Quote: "Question for you: can single Episcopal priests date? The Orthodox Church and Eastern Rite Churches don't allow for single priests to marry. What is your precedent?"

Is this true that a man ordained in the Eastern Rite cannot marry after being ordained? I find this very interesting. Can you elaborate on this for me.. THANKS.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 05, 2002.


Fred,

Here's a quote from www.catholic.com:

"Even in the Eastern churches, though, there have always been some restrictions on marriage and ordination. Although married men may become priests, unmarried priests may not marry, and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry. Moreover, there is an ancient Eastern discipline of choosing bishops from the ranks of the celibate monks, so their bishops are all unmarried."

They mention "Eastern Churches." I believe this to include both Catholic and Orthodox Churches. That would be consistent with what I have learned elsewhere.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 05, 2002.


Mateo

Many Thanks. Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 05, 2002.


Actually many answers. Our present parish priest is dating. Kinda long term and likely serious.

Per my objection to my own views (and I wish that more would be kind to voice objections that they see to their own views, not just here, be everywere), the EC church does not have the problem with divorce wthat the RC church does. This may be for good or for ill, lets not go into that here. So if we have a divorced priest, it is not a scandel. This is a problem for the RC church, and must be considered, and likely is a good arguement for the RC church *not* having married priests.

On Saint Francis: I like him. I admire him. He was truly a holy and wonderful person. And one can be holy and one can be wonderful without being a priest. But many are called to the next step. And we are indirectly talking about the ways to increase the priesthood members, not just to get everyone to Heaven.

On preaching the gospel: good thing no matter what. If you can get priests out if this, and likely you can, all the better. Show Christianity as a challenge. We had one priest in the local EC church that so watered down a message I had heard as a challenge (from a protestant turned RC preacher but not priest, just monk) that I would not go to that church again. And I heard that they asked the Bishop for another priest sometime after that.

On my 'call' to be a priest: the sisters at the Catholic school I attended were rather forceful about giving a good recruiting speach. (grades 3 thru 6). They made every young man at least consider it. This may be the real hole these days: Without the sisters, the ballance is not there. (1)(I am reminded of the shakers: they recruited members from the orphans that they took in, they had to, they *all* were celibate. They died out when the men did not come back in, and broke a multi-'generation' link. The men did not come back both because of the celibacy and because the women were strong for women's rights. Still they did much good while they existed. Just got unballanced and died out.)(2)(The next time I found such a forceful speach was at a protestant alter call. I had never been exposed to one in the RC church, they are rare in the EC church, but they are a good thing now and then.)

I am married, not a priest, and an EC member. I see the EC church warts and all. I do not have the post-teen rebellion emotional issues with the EC church that I had with the sisters and the RC church. This forum has helped me deal with some of those issues, but I can not go back yet.

These emotional issues are like this one: The sisters said that the missionarys preach the gospel, and anyone who hears the gospel and does not believe is headed for Hell. Now imagine that you are a respected member of your community and some stranger comes in, and in very badly accented language tries to convince you that his God is better than yours, in fact that yours is false and his is good. Would he get far? NO! And if your god is non-christian, and the stranger is a missionary, will your soul be considered by all good christians to be dammed? Of course. And if we never had missionarys? The good heathen might rely on the mercy of God. So I mixed the sisters teaching with a simple bit of logic and concluded that the principal result of the missionary effort is a lot of damned souls. Well that was 6th grade. I have worked this through a bit, tho I still do not like missionarys that go to preach and not to work for the good of the bodies, saving souls along the way.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), April 08, 2002.


Hello, folks. Still getting caught up. Just read this thread from top to bottom -- wow, a long one, and I read slowly! I am prompted to make a few short comments.


David B (non-Catholic) stated:
"Paul ... said in 1 COR 9:5, 'Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?' So in my view, if being married was a right for all of the apostles except for Paul and Barnabus (who's celebate calling the Catholic Church is emulating), then it should be a right for every priest." [and Dave B wrote in a later post ...] "[T]he scripture verse I quoted above from the Apostle Paul pretty clearly indicates that the apostles lived a normal married life and it was even their right to get married (and it didn't specify that it had to occur prior to becoming a priest)."

David's errors here are (1) arriving at a wrong interpretation of the verse by relying on "sola scriptura" [no Sacred Tradition and Magisterium to guide him] and (2) failure to acknowledge the power of the Church's leaders to exercise the authority to bind and loose [resulting in binding and loosing in heaven].

The verse quoted from St. Paul was wrested from context, chopping off verse 6. Let's take a look at the ending of 5 with 6:
"Do we not have the right to take along a Christian woman, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas? Or is it only myself and Barnabas who do not have the right not to work?"

As has been pointed out, the Greek word "gyne" (woman) is used. The reference to the "rest of the apostles" includes St. John, who was not married -- yet St. Paul says that he had a female companion [yes, the BVM!]. In context, we see that this passage is not about some kind of sexual rights of clergy (e.g., to be married, to have a bed-companion while travelling), but rather it is about the right -- in St. Paul's time -- of a male missionary to be accompanied by a Christian female who would care for his various (non-sexual) needs.

But, for the sake of argument, let us pretend that David B was right, and that St. Paul is claiming that each minister had "the right to take along a believing wife." Would David B then be right to extend his interpretation by saying that the Bible verse "pretty clearly indicates that the apostles lived a normal married life and it was even their right to get married (and it didn't specify that it had to occur prior to becoming a priest)"? Certainly not. David B "reads into" the verse what he wishes were there. The verse says nothing about an apostle living "a normal married life" (by which he means intercourse), since an apostle being helped even by his wife could nonetheless be celibate. And the verse does not even hint about a supposed right of an apostle to "get married" after having been ordained by Jesus.

But let us go a step farther and, for the sake of argument, pretend that David B was right, and that St. Paul was claiming that he could get married and enjoy intercourse during his missionary travels. Would that tell us anything about what modern Catholic priests could do? Not at all. The successors of the apostles (under the pope) have always had the authority to change such disciplinary laws as these -- but unfortunately, David B forgot this (or rejects the concept that he used the accept before he fell away from Catholicism).


Mateo stated: "I humbly submit that the relaxation of celibacy doesn't create a wealth of vocations ... faithful non-wishy-washy teaching creates a wealth of priestly vocations."

Amen to that, sir. My diocese (in the U.S.) is just like yours, with many great vocations and filled rectories. Other talk on this thread about there being a shortage of priests in the U.S. is too generalized, since there are dioceses where there is no shortage. ALL dioceses could be the same, if they had great bishops like you and I do and did the right things out in the parishes. There is absolutely no need for a switch to a married priesthood in order to increase the numbers in areas where a shortage exists.


David B also wrote: "My understanding is that there is no historical basis for the belief that the apostles voluntarily or otherwise became celibate at any point in their lives in serving Christ Jesus. I believe I read that from noted Catholic theologian Raymond Brown, if I'm not mistaken. ... I've heard of that belief before, so I did some digging into it a year or so ago and could not locate any historical reference myself to substantiate that. If you could provide one, that would be great."

Yes, it was six to twelve months ago that I raised this subject (the married apostles' continence after Pentecost) on another thread. It was something new to David B at the time, and he was skeptical of it. I mentioned that some scholars had make the claim in recent years, and I pointed out that Pope John Paul II had become convinced that it was factual. I believe that Chris Butler added some quotations that supported my claim. I see that David B says that he tried to look further into it but instead came up only with a contrary Catholic claim -- that from Fr. Raymond Brown. Anyone who has read the linked page about the reliability of Fr. Brown (and the age of his comments [30 years]) can now discount what David found. Speaking of "Father Raymonds," just last week, I saw Fr. Raymond Ryland interviewed for a half hour about a new book of his, which was written to comment on the very subject of priestly celibacy. Fr. R even mentioned the roots of celibacy in the apostolic age and how it has been research in the past twenty years or so that has made this more clear than ever (research not available to Fr. Brown). I will post the title of the Ryland book later, as I cannot recall it right now. By the way, Fr. Ryland is a convert from Episcopalianism, a faith in which he was a married "priest" in the 1950s. He then became a Catholic layman, later a longtime deacon, and finally a validly ordained priest.


Kathy wrote: "Mass[achusetts] is prodominantly catholic, as are a lot of the reporters."

Actually, this is not correct. Only in Rhode Island do the majority of the inhabitants claim to be Catholic. The percentage in Massachusetts is in the 40s, and that includes some who ought not to be included (folks who were raised Catholic, but have not really practiced any faith for years -- nominal and "cultural" Catholics).


Mateo stated: "I have met a LOT of ordered priests (non-diocesan) who teach in high schools and colleges and don't serve as pastors. This is great for them, but if the Church need shephards, we've got them -- some are just hiding! These men should be serving the faithful, IMHO."

I would like to persuade you to change your HO [humble opinion], Mateo! It is not for us to say that religious-order priests "should be serving the faithful" in parishes [I presume you mean], but rather for the pope to say that. Priests in these orders have a different charism (from diocesan priests), according to the will of their founders, some of whom did not want their priests to work in parishes. Most popes have respected this, believing it to be the work of the Holy Spirit, and have not certain religious-order priests to go against their founders' wishes.


Sean, I respectfully renew my request to you that you avoid referring to my religion as the "RC church." This is the "Catholic" forum -- not RC and not "Roman Catholic." The Church headed by the pope is, purely and simply, the Catholic Church. We speak here of the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" -- CCC, not CRCC. In Vatican documents, papal addresses, etc., our Church is always called the CC, not the RCC.

I believe that no person of my Church who comes here would be offended at being called a "Catholic" or a "member of the Catholic Church." By contrast, I and some others are offended by being called "Roman Catholics" or "members of the RC church." Therefore, I ask you to take the "common denominator" and refer to us as "Catholics." I don't mind if you abreviate Catholic Church as "CC." [The reason that "Roman Catholic" is offensive to some of us is that we are aware of the term's roots. It was coined in 16th-century Britain as a put-down of genuine Catholics, who were loyal to the pope. It was a slur intended to brand the orthodox people as vassals of a foreign prince, disloyal to the Brit throne.]

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002.


Well, I looked for the name of the book by Fr. Ryland, but cannot find it. I think that it is possible that, while written, it has not yet been published.

Please excuse the errors in my post above. I forgot to proofread it. I hope that the mistakes do not lead to confusion. I'll just make one specific correction. I used the word "celibate" (unmarried) instead of the proper word, "continent," in this phrase: "an apostle being helped even by his wife could nonetheless be celibate."

JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002.


I intended no slur. I was making a difference between the current Catholic and the split off Anglo/Episcopal Cathloic practices. If I remember, I will try to do it your way, but it seems to be confusing to more people, especially as most are not aware that RC is a slur. For me it is just a designatior, no different than the BCE vs BC that I must use with some of my friends. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), April 15, 2002.

I am a practicing catholic and if I give you the same old response that is because it is the right response. I am sure, and willing to bet on my life that any preist you ask would say that they agree with the idea of celibacy, from the way you phrased your question it doesn't seem you're catholic and if you are you must not be a good one. Preists enter in a vow of chastity ,poverty ,and obedience. If someone wnted to be a preist and get married they have the option of becoming deacons .

-- anonymous (ere6987@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

Married Catholic Priest...how does Catholic church balance allowing married priests from other religions, who convert and be both married and a fully functional Catholic priest??

-- Michael (nyconsulting2@aol.com), April 24, 2002.

Do you think priests should be allowed to marry?

Yes, because it would relieve the priest shortage. Many parts of the world are even more desperate than us wealthy nations. It would be better if priests were not married, if for the sake of the kingdom, but a married priest is better than none at all AND a married priest is better than a non-married priest who stayed single for reasons other than for the sake of the kingdom.

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 24, 2002.


Mike

I find none of your reasons to be valid at all. We need full time priests not part timers. There are Deacons to fill the roles of part- yimers on hand now.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 24, 2002.


Dear Mike,
What makes you and others so sure this alone would ''relieve the priest shortage?'' There's no body of evidence that says so. I'm married, and if out of the blue, I were made eligible anyway to join the priesthood, I wouldn't. Many good deacons are married, and some men remain batchelors without giving a thought to the priesthood. As I pointed out in a recent thread, Saint Francis of Asissi was asked to become a priest by Pope innocent himself, and declined, even though he never took a wife.

You and many others, it seems, don't like to think outside the box. You just assume all priests are hungering for female companionship and sexual consolation. Did it ever occur to you that a holy priest is hungry for the intimate life of the spirit, united to Jesus Christ? --They're called to love and to serve God, not their passion for women.

And, if a young man prefers to have a romance and a wife and raise children, he will do so; with no other distractions. I wouldn't blame him for dismissing any notions of entering the holy priesthood. His calling is to marry-- and not live without a woman. Perfectly reasonable.

The priest shortage is not solved so easily as just opening the doors to married priests. Dedicated men have to be called to the priesthood; and none have been more dedicated in the past, since the days of the Apostles, than celibates. I maintain the shortage is owing not so much to the rule of celibacy as to the lack of spiritual depth in the men of western society. Men are lovers of money, pleasure and freedom from responsibility. That's why it's asking too much of them. They would be the same with a wife and extra mouths to feed. FAITH; renewed faith in our hearts is what will bring more good men to the priesthood, IMHO.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 24, 2002.


eugene,

A celibate priest can remain as one and new celibates may enter the priesthood. I did not say to make it a requirement that a priest must be married. I did not think that todays Catholic priests hunger for the sacrament of marriage. Never thought that for a second. Misunderstanding here.

You noticed that deacons are married. These could all be made priests. And many would do it I bet.

I agree that the "lack of spiritual depth in the men of western society" is at root. Which is exactly why adjustments need to be made in order to accomodate the moral shift. When the Jews could not keep the Mosaic law, God adjusted it in Deuteronomy. A living Church with less holiness is better than a non-existant Church.

Peace

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 27, 2002.


Mike, My Friend:
I wish I could agree with you. The last part of your statement has a kind of defeatism written into it. Is God a defeatist? Does the Church follow the faithful, or is it for the faithful to come to the Church?

There's nothing inherently wrong with a maried priest in some circumstances. If the Pope were to lift the rule of celibacy, we'd gain many good priests. The Church would never see the end of troubles, I think. --Jealousies, divorces, broken vows. And a brazen laity that would soon ask for more concessions. That's human nature.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 27, 2002.


Agreed

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 27, 2002.

I've read quite a few of the notes above. One thing I'd like to add is that a priest in persona Christi has as his "bride" his Church - he is to be universal with no favorites. Were he married it would be setting apart a particular wife and family, in essence elevating them to a more important role in his life than that of his flock. Also his relatively full time ministry would be divided rather than focused on God and flock. It would not take long before friction would set in when he is called away at all hours, or never there for a meal when prepared, etc. but this reasoning is secondary to the issue. A priest should remain celebate as Jesus Himself was. Jesus belonged to everyone, thus should a priest.

You mention Paul and Barnabas regarding wives. Peter was married. He left his wife behind.

-- Rose (chdake@prodigy.net), April 27, 2002.


Rose,

Jesus was not so evenly generous with his graces. You seem to suggest that all celibates are more just in their distribution of favors or helps. You suggest that if Jesus or a priest were married then they would be compromised because they would give more favors to certain persons and less to others. God and Jesus act this way anyway, right now. Jesus had a special someone who was given love similar to that which a husband may give a wife. That woman was his own mother. Mary was given graces that no one else got or ever got again. So if a priest is married, he could still be as generous in a similar fashion as Christ but he may just have less power from God at his disposal. A married priest could still be pure as gold, he would just be a smaller nugget of gold.

Peace

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 02, 2002.


If somebody takes an oath of celibacy then they should commit to it. However you have to wonder how many potential priests the Catholic Church loses due to this oath. Now a days the demand for priests is greater than ever due to lack of up and coming priests. Also, I would feel more comfortable talking to a priest who is also a husband and father of his own children, because they go through what we go through. It is not natural to constrain one self from sexual desires and it certainly is not natural to allow oneself to never fall in love. So whose to say priests shouldn't do so.

-- Mike (Mikrani14@Hotmail.com), November 19, 2002.

Mike writes:

"It is not natural to constrain one self from sexual desires and it certainly is not natural to allow oneself to never fall in love."

Mike, your own wisdom is contrary to the Bible. Specifically, both Jesus and St. Paul (among many others) were "unnatural" according to your assertion.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 19, 2002.


Well maybe it isn't natural OR unnatural but supernatural to be celibate. Nothing wrong with THAT interpretation, is there? Can't argue that Jesus was that, or that the grace of celibacy that St Paul received (and many others) was/is also supernatural. Isn't that the point?

??????????????????????

Jane

-- jane (jane@don't like spam.either), November 19, 2002.


'A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife ... one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?' I Timothy 3:1-7.

any comments ?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 20, 2002.


Oliver, I fear that, as a non-Catholic who trusts in the false principle of "sola scriptura" (Bible alone, with private, unguided interpretation), you have misunderstood the meaning and intent of this verse -- and you may now be proffering it as something that allegedly shows that the Catholic Church to rejecting a teaching of St. Paul and of God. Am I right? If so, I must tell you that you are mistaken.

The words, "the husband of one wife," do NOT mean that a bishop MUST be married, but merely that, if a man happens to be married, he cannot be made a bishop if he is a polygamist. The words also mean that, having become a bishop, he will not remarry if his only wife dies.

According to present-day disciplines, married men do not become bishops. What St. Paul described was a disciplinary rule, not a doctrine. The successors of St. Peter have the power to introduce new disciplines -- and have used that power.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 21, 2002.


for me, they should be allowed to get marry, because look at the situation of many priets right now, they are involved in sex scandals like child molestation... if a person really want to serve God, he can serve God even if he is married, right? thannks

-- janel (eighteen_me@yahoo.com), November 27, 2003.

Since most cases of child molestation are perpetrated by married men, it doesn't seem as though marriage would be a solution to that problem. Men who have that problem have it whether they are married or not. Besides, if priests were allowed to marry, those who have this problem would be precisely the ones who would NOT marry, since they are homosexuals.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 27, 2003.

Since most cases of child molestation are perpetrated by married men, it doesn't seem as though marriage would be a solution to that problem. Men who have that problem have it whether they are married or not. Besides, if priests were allowed to marry, those who have this problem would be precisely the ones who would NOT marry, since they are homosexuals.

Paul, there is something I don't get , marriage , Priests , child molestors & homosexuals , or my problem must be the english language ??

Cheers & Salut from a

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), November 27, 2003.


Since most cases of child molestation are perpetrated by married men, it doesn't seem as though marriage would be a solution to that problem. Men who have that problem have it whether they are married or not. Besides, if priests were allowed to marry, those who have this problem would be precisely the ones who would NOT marry, since they are homosexuals.

Paul, there is something I don't get , marriage , Priests , child molestors & homosexuals , or my problem must be the english language ??

PS: Can you delete my earlier reply in this thread , 'cause I pushed too soon , enter !! Thx in advance !!

Cheers & Salut from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), November 27, 2003.


Jamel,

"..For me, they should be allowed to get marry, because look at the situation of many Priest now..."

Yes look at the situation.The Catholic Church is blessed with so many holy priests. Its very important to keep praying for vocations.

St. Pio once said, that it would be easier for the world to exist without the sun, than it would be easier to exist without the holy Mass for one day.

Don't dwell on the nagatives all the time. You are what you retain. If you keep slopping in B.S., than that is all your mind will retain.

Over 95% of Catholic priests are very holy men that are true servants of our Lord.

May God bless our holy priests, and there families.

-- - (David@excite.com), November 27, 2003.


David , my dad (rip) had a cousin (rip) who was a dean , but he decided to quit his job for a younger woman he loved !! __ He was already around the age of 60 , when they get married and a year later they had a healthy boy !! __ Is that wrong ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), November 27, 2003.


Laurent,

Your question is so unclear, that I have no idea what you are asking?

What are you asking? Didn't you post that your Dad has passed in the past?

What does a cousin that was a dean have to do with anything, or the age of sixty, or a baby?

Laurent, you need to come home to the Catholic Church. You know whats up dawg!

-- - (David@excite.com), November 27, 2003.


Dawg ?? Or does you mean dawn ??

Well , David , yes , my dad died in 2000 , My dads'cousin died a few years earlier !! (rip = Rest In Peace)

But I was trying to say , if priests want to marry , simple , they have to resign from their job , 'cause that are the rules of rcc !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), November 27, 2003.


david, you posted some incorrect information a few posts up...

Over 95% of Catholic priests are very holy men that are true servants of our Lord

this is just wholly incorrect. the percent of priests who molest is 0.5 percent.

if you are taking into account every sin of priests worldwide, then maybe i could see 5 %, but in regards to child molestation that number would be so ridiculously high it would be beyond concievable limits in my mind.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 27, 2003.


Hello, paul

"David, you posted some incorrect information a few posts up..."

No I didn't paul. You just didn't understand what I posted! Take your time and DON'T think about "child molestors" because I didn't mention them, and I wasn't associating them with Catholic priests like you did. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I said,"..over 95% of Catholic priests are very holy men that are true servants of the Lord."

There is nothing incorrect about this statement of mine. I didn't mention anything about a "child molestor" or a priest did I paul?

Please get your mind out of the gutter. I didn't associate a priest and a "child molestor" at all. It was your "thinking" that did this.

Than you said about your mistake to me, "This is just wholly incorrect, the priest who mollests is 0.5%, than maybe I could see 5%...."

Stop it paul! I never said anything about a priest molesting a child. Can't you read?

Again [little paul]: I said,"[over] 95% of Catholic priests are very holy men, that are true servants of the Lord."

This is NOT INCORRECT information! This has NOTHING to do with a child molestor. Can't you read?

May God bless our priests, and you to.

-- - (David@excite.com), November 28, 2003.


dave,

take time and think before you say things...

they should be allowed to get marry, because look at the situation of many priets right now, they are involved in sex scandals like child molestation...

this was said, to which you responded that over 95 % of priests are good people.

now, i know what you meant... but to some protestant fundy with an agenda, theyre going to use that to say "look, even a catholic recognizes that five percent of priest could be child molestors."

your intent, stating that OVERALL for all possible transgressions, 95% are good honest and pure... is not in debate at all. BUT what comes off is an unclarified response to a comment ABOUT child molestation. all im saying is be precise in what you say, or it could be turned against you.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 28, 2003.


"..or it could be turned against you."

Only by people that take what I write out of context like you did paul.

Again- I never said anything or insinuated anything about a "child molestor" and a priest!

Go back and read it AGAIN paul! Its' that simple. You're wrong. I was complimenting Catholic priests.

You need to slow down, and take your time.

I could care less at what [can] be turned AGAINST me. Thr proof is in the "puddin".

Scroll up and read it, AGAIN, paul! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - How can you us someting "against" me when you can't understand what was posted?

Slow down paul!

-- - (David@excite.com), November 28, 2003.


again, dave, youre ducking and dodging...

Only by people that take what I write out of context like you did paul.

actually, i took things completely IN context... and thats your problem.

Again- I never said anything or insinuated anything about a "child molestor" and a priest!

yes, you did. by responding to Jamels post WHICH INDICATED DISCUSSION ON CHILD MOLESTATION you in effect insinuated a continuation of the topic.

a question for anyone ELSE on this thread... if person 1 says "theres a problem with priests and child molestation" and person 2 responds "well, person 1, 95 percent of the priests are okay." does it not follow that false conclusions COULD be drawn?

be honest dave, im not holding it against you... its just a clarification which MUST be made.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 28, 2003.


David said, "Over 95% of Catholic priests are very holy men that are true servants of our Lord."

When I saw that, I said to myself, "Over 95% could be anywhere from 95.1% to 99.9%."

Some of the ones who aren't "very holy men" were involved in homo scandals, others get too friendly with women, others steal from collections, and others are chaste and honest but get involved in teaching heretical junk. The rest (95.1 to 99.9%), says David, are "very holy men who are true servants of Our Lord."

-- (I@Like.Ty), November 28, 2003.


you didnt answer the question properly...

the question was: when somebody says there is a problem with child molestation and another person responds with "95% are okay" then how does that apppear...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 28, 2003.


paul,

"...and another person responds with 95% are okay than how does this appear."

You are wrong again paul. I said NO such thing. How are you going to rember your history in college if you can't rember what I wrote hours ago?

This is another blunder by you. I didn't say 95% are okay. [This is why I am telling you to slow down] I said "OVER 95% of Catholic priests are very holy men that are true servants of the Lord"

This means paul that over 950 out of every thousand Catholic Priest are very holy men. It could also mean 975 out of every thousand.

I rember reading from the Jenkins study in forum a year or so ago that the percantage that are child molestor is around 1.7%. So I already knew this because I can rember what I read. Its obvious you can't! :-)

So paul its safe to say [OVER] 95% oF CATHOLIC Priests are very holy men,that are true servants of the Lord. And over 98% are not a pervert.

God bless the holy Catholic Church.

-- - (David@excite.com), November 28, 2003.


you know what david, i dont care.

if you dont want to qualify your statement such that it is easy to understand, it doesnt matter. It's enough that it has since been easy to understand. sorry you are too prideful to accept any form of logical correction.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 28, 2003.


"you know what david, i don't even care.."

If you don't care than why did you keep posting after you were shown your bo boo's? :-)

God bless you

-- - (David@excite.com), December 05, 2003.


because, david, i was under the impression it was important you understand what i was getting at. its not, so long as you were clear on what YOU were getting at. thats quite clear. the other important thing was clarification for any protestants who might misunderstand, and that was accomplished with my first post.

i was trying to drive my point home, and after the first post, my two goals were actually met... it just took me a bit to realize that i was debating something where i already should have been satisfied...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 05, 2003.


I AM NOT SUPORTED RIESTS TO BE, BECAUSE IT WILL COUSE A LOT OF PROBLEMS TO THEM IT WILL NOT ALLOW THEM TO WORK PERFERTLY, EVEN DO THEY WORK THEY WILL NOT CONSENTLY ON WHAT THEY DOING THERE MAIND WILL BE ON THE FAMILY PROBLEMS. THANKS.

-- Florence (florapink2010@yahoo.com), December 06, 2003.

Yes Priests should be allowed to marry. They are like everyone else, just they work in the church. If it's the whole sex thing, it's okay as long as it's in marriage. That's retarded...they say the point of our existence it to create new life, but priests can't? That doesn't make sense. And where are the "rules" saying that they can't?

-- Maritza (hypergurl_yroc@hotmail.com), January 01, 2004.

Thank you for all these valuable opinions! I am doing a persuasion essay on this topic, and this website has given me all sorts of instite as to what other peoples opinions are. I think that Priests should be allowed to marry if that is their desire.

-- Darcy Brooke Perdue (dperdue@cicenterprises.com), April 12, 2004.

A persuasion essay? You write to persuade others about the topic of celibacy?

Now, here you say you believe priests should be allowed to marry if they so desire. Maritza; priests will not be ''allowed'' to marry. They are supposed to give up the thought of marriage when they decide on their vocation. In fact, they are already ALLOWED to marry, if they wish. When they choose a married man's vocation, not after becoming priests. Only a single man may be ordained. There's nothing wrong about choosing marriage. But priests must be single and celibate. Jesus Christ was single and celibate; and His priests must be single as well as celibate. They must try to be as holy as Jesus Himself is. That's the reason they are celibate. They must give no thought to the flesh. You see, sometimes the simplest answer to a problem is the best one.

Before you attempt to persuade the world priests should be allowed to marry, remember: Only the Pope can say so. No one is free to persuade anyone except the Holy Father. He speaks for Our Lord.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 12, 2004.


Please forgive me; I meant to address Darcy, not Maritza. The post was meant for you, Darcy, because you are writing a persuasion essay. Think it over.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 12, 2004.

-the answer is no.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 12, 2004.

Maritza,

Remember that being a priest is not just a job. It is a life style. Being a protestant minister isn't a full time job like being a Catholic priest. Many protestant ministers have other jobs too.

Try reading Paul's letters in the New Testament. He makes a strong argument for celibacy.

Also the priesthood is a more ascetic lifestyle. I for one think that priests should also take vows of poverty. This ascetic lifestyle is to make the priest better able to help others. I think that there is something else going on with priests that call for a voluntary celibacy. I would be interested to see what those priests pray lives are like.

Being a priest isn't easier either. It isn't supposed to be. Just like being a Catholic. It is ment to be hard. Sexuality, especially today, is a very tempting thing to use. But monks have been taking vows of celibacy from the beginning and I don't see many of them calling for an end to celibacy.

We should pray for the priests that they might stay faithful to their vows. We should say, "Oh, you can't live up to your vow? Ok, just go get married. There is no need to keep trying."

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), April 12, 2004.


scott, martiza,

even Jesus makes the strong arguement for celebacy (not just in His lifestyle, either).

"unless you give up everything you have, you cannot be my disciple"

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 12, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ