Catholic church and married priests

[Simon666]

Married men might ease shortage of Catholic priest (http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories2003/features/20030927023229.shtml)
More priests question celibacy and ask for ‘open, honest’ discussion of issue

By Shirley Ragsdale
The Des Moines Register
September 27th, 2003

An increasing number of Roman Catholic priests are asking the U.S. church hierarchy to consider making celibacy optional, but the bishops aren’t buying it.

About a third of priests serving in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in August signed letters to Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, saying the growing clergy shortage could be eased if married men were permitted to become priests.

Then five additional priest support organizations announced that they would follow the Milwaukee priests’ example. It is the first time in nearly three decades that the U.S. Catholic clergy has publicly raised the issue.

Sioux City, Iowa, Bishop Daniel DiNardo says U.S. bishops don’t have the power to make celibacy optional even if they wanted to.

"Celibacy is a universal discipline of the Latin Rite church," DiNardo says. "Recently the Holy Father restated the church commitment to our faith, that there would be no change in the celibacy vow."

Gregory has said in newspaper interviews little could be gained by reviewing "a topic that has been fairly well discussed."

The Catholic Church is going in the wrong direction when it seeks to silence voices of reform, says Frank Cordaro, a Des Moines, Iowa, priest and peace activist. Cordaro is on a leave of absence, which is the first step in fulfilling his desire to leave the priesthood over the celibacy issue.

"I have great grief in my heart for what’s going on in the church," Cordaro says. "Until we have an open and honest discussion and stop penalizing people for asking questions, the church will remain in this strange tailspin.

"Those of us who want to see married priests and women priests may be wrong. It may not be the best thing for the church. But being unwilling to even talk about it is not healthy."

Pope John Paul II has said the vow of celibacy is scriptural and "a matter of keeping one’s word to Christ and the Church, a duty and a proof of the priest’s inner maturity."

That demand for unquestioning obedience is bad theology and bad human management, according to Norbert Gernes of Eden Prairie, Minn., a former cleric who left the church in 1973. He is married and ministers through the "Rent-A-Priest" referral program, doing weddings, funerals and baptisms.

"The celibacy thing is an issue of control," Gernes says. "If the priest is a single person, the bishop can order him around, assigning him here or there. If he has a wife and kids to take along, the priest might tell the bishop where to go."

The Catholic Church has required clergy to be celibate since the 12th century, although some Eastern Rite priests may be married. Since 1980, married Anglican and Episcopal priests and Lutheran pastors who convert to Catholicism may also serve as priests.

"That’s a slap in the face of cradle Catholic priests," says Louise Haggett of Celibacy Is the Issue Ministries, an international community of married Roman Catholic priests. "But until more priests come forward and stand up for what they believe in, the church will never change the law."

When Jim Orwig of Omaha, Neb., entered the seminary, he had unrealistic expectations of what kind of mentoring he might have to help him live a celibate life. He was ordained in 1973 and left in 1978. He got married and divorced but remains close to his former wife because of their daughter. He is a "Rent-A-Priest," too.

"I expected when we got to a parish, there would be a fraternity of the priesthood that would be supportive," Orwig says. "In reality, people are so spread out and weighed down by responsibilities that the logistics got more and more difficult."

Where the priests and bishops agree is that the priest shortage is threatening the church’s ability to minister to the faithful.

The number of priests is declining while the number of Catholics in the United States increased by about 2 percent, according to the 2003 edition of the official Catholic directory. There were 714 fewer diocesan priests in the United States in 2003 than in 2002. The number of newly ordained priests was 449, 30 fewer than the previous year.

Instead of asking the church to accept married priests, the Vatican on June 30 advised priests and laity to dedicate themselves to attracting more candidates by better explaining the priesthood and encouraging families to ask their children to consider a religious vocation.

In the meantime, priests who remain in active ministry are being asked to do more and more, according to Orwig. Many priests are assigned to two or three parishes.

"The priests are getting older and older, they’re being spread thinner and thinner," Orwig says. "It’s a sad thing when people well beyond retirement age are expected to keep on doing what they have been doing."

If the Catholic hierarchy won’t budge on celibacy, the people in the pews could do it themselves, according to Haggett. If married priests were invited to serve understaffed parishes and nobody objected, the church would eventually adopt the practice as a custom created by the people of the church.

She says grass-roots action changed rules on acceptance of altar girls, Mass in the vernacular, meatless Fridays, women being required to cover their heads in church and fasting before communion.

[Simon666]

That's right, even though the pope claims that popes are infallible and that the vow of celibacy is scriptural, married priests were allowed from ever since Christ died until somewhere in the twelth century. Here we find a contradiction : either all those previous popes from before that time were wrong and possibly heretics, or those afterwards. It cannot be both. Here we already find that the pope's claim to be infallible is completely absurd and proven untrue.

The reason why it was required from the 12th century was a matter of lust for power and greed, as in those medieval times the catholic church owned a lot of land and property which meant that if priests were married, these possessions would be divided among multiple children instead of flow back to the church when unmarried. As said in the article it is also a matter of power and control : if the priest is a single person, the bishop can order him around, assigning him here or there. If he has a wife and kids to take along, the priest might tell the bishop where to go.

And lastly, they violate their own rules, as some Eastern Rite priests may be married. And since 1980, married Anglican and Episcopal priests and Lutheran pastors who convert to Catholicism may also serve as priests.

============================================

All of this indicates the Vatican is a fundamentalist religious dictatorship, and still has traits from the times when like all of those other religious dictatorships they were bent on (the abuse of) power and wealth.

[dove]

i never saw anywhere in the bible where it stated that anyone who preaches His word, has to be celibate.

is there any other christian religion besides catholics (who have a few other of their *own* rules that arent necessarily scriptural) that have this requirement from their clergy?

[gopman]

It has nothing to do with power. Vatican scholars in the middle ages determined that preists are supposed to live as Jesus did, because they are his representatives on Earth. He acts through them. And he never married. Peter left behind his old family to preach the word of God. I think this passage needs to be viewed symbolically. It shows his new dedication to God rather than material things.

Even though I am a faithful Catholic, I do sometimes find myself with questions about papal infallibility. The Pope is God's main representative, and God acts through him, but he is still a man and can make mistakes. I have never seen the argument for Papal infallibiliy though, and I may yet change my mind.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by dove
It has nothing to do with power. Vatican scholars in the middle ages determined that preists are supposed to live as Jesus did, because they are his representatives on Earth. He acts through them. And he never married. Peter left behind his old family to preach the word of God. I think this passage needs to be viewed symbolically. It shows his new dedication to God rather than material things.
Not true. And this whole representatives of od thing is rubbish. God has no representatives in the Bible other than the profets, and there have been no profets since Jezus. That whole representative of God thingy was invented by the Pope to get rid of all nasty questions and to establish their power above kings. And Petrus had a wife (http://www.ida.net/users/rdk/ces/apostles_married.html), and just because the Bible doesn't say much about them doesn't mean the apostles were not married. :rolleyes: Another case of false interpretation and stretching it of the catholic church.
Originally posted by dove
Even though I am a faithful Catholic, I do sometimes find myself with questions about papal infallibility. The Pope is God's main representative, and God acts through him, but he is still a man and can make mistakes. I have never seen the argument for Papal infallibiliy though, and I may yet change my mind.
infallibility
Related: Roman Catholic (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/i1/infallib.asp)

(infãlebil´ete) , in Christian thought, exemption from the possibility of error, bestowed on the church as a teaching authority, as a gift of the Holy Spirit. It has been believed since the earliest times to be guaranteed in such scriptural passages as John 14.16,17. The analogous attribute of the Bible is usually called inerrancy. Protestants widely reject infallibility of the church. The Orthodox Eastern Church holds that only the church, taken as an integral community and spiritual body guided by the Holy Spirit, is infallible. Roman Catholics hold that the infallibility of the church is vested in the pope, when he speaks ex cathedra (i.e., from the chair of Peter, as the visible head of the church) on matters of faith and morals. Definitive pronouncements resulting from an ecumenical council, when ratified by the pope, are also held to be infallible. The pope speaks ex cathedra only rarely and after long deliberation. The dogma of papal infallibility was enunciated by the First Vatican Council (1870).

This was established because popes wanted that noone would doubt them, to keep the unity of the catholic church and be able to expel quickly those who dissent with the pope (=religious dictatorship).

[gopman]

"And Petrus had a wife, and just because the Bible doesn't say much about them doesn't mean the apostles were not married. Another case of false interpretation and stretching it of the catholic church."

I will respond with a quote from my previous post.

"Peter left behind his old family to preach the word of God. I think this passage needs to be viewed symbolically. It shows his new dedication to God rather than material things."

"This was established because popes wanted that noone would doubt them, to keep the unity of the catholic church and be able to expel quickly those who dissent with the pope (=religious dictatorship)"

There's no way for you to know their motives. They aren't a religious dictatorship because they have no political power, they just consider themselves the final earthly authority on spiritual matters, and that is reasonable. So reasonable, in fact, that millions of people believe it to be true.

[JD3]

Originally posted by gopman
"And Petrus had a wife, and just because the Bible doesn't say much about them doesn't mean the apostles were not married. Another case of false interpretation and stretching it of the catholic church."

I will respond with a quote from my previous post.

"Peter left behind his old family to preach the word of God. I think this passage needs to be viewed symbolically. It shows his new dedication to God rather than material things."

"This was established because popes wanted that noone would doubt them, to keep the unity of the catholic church and be able to expel quickly those who dissent with the pope (=religious dictatorship)"

There's no way for you to know their motives. They aren't a religious dictatorship because they have no political power, they just consider themselves the final earthly authority on spiritual matters, and that is reasonable. So reasonable, in fact, that millions of people believe it to be true.

I agree. While I have no problem allowing them to marry and be open to other changes, I would be very careful about speculating on their motives in these contexts. And as gopman discribes it, many, many people like myself do acept it. But that doesn't mean we don't question.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by gopman
I will respond with a quote from my previous post.

"Peter left behind his old family to preach the word of God. I think this passage needs to be viewed symbolically. It shows his new dedication to God rather than material things."
So you admit the pope stretched interpretation beyond its limits, as Petrus was married which the pope ignores, but put God as more important, which he interprets somehow as God saying he should be unmarried? We're getting somewhere.

And answer me this question : were the earlier popes right or wrong? Or is this pope and those before him till 12 century wrong or right?
Originally posted by gopman
There's no way for you to know their motives. They aren't a religious dictatorship because they have no political power, they just consider themselves the final earthly authority on spiritual matters, and that is reasonable. So reasonable, in fact, that millions of people believe it to be true.
Their motives are quite known. You just haven't faced up the harsh reality yet. And the pope is a religious dictatorship, last time I checked the Vatican is a state. And the head of which is the head of a religious movement, and is elected and decides undemocratically. Now which part makes this hard to understand for you? This sounds like a religious dictatorship to me.

And one that is abusing its influence on international scale as they even have an own UN seat unlike Islam, Buddhism or any other religion. They abuse their seat to block and thwart family issues such as birth planning, condoms, information on how to prevent Aids, etcetera... They are evil. Did you know that according to the orthodox church the pope is the anti-christ? Although atheist, I think they have a point.

[gopman]

"were the earlier popes right or wrong?"

On many occasions previous popes have been wrong. John Paul II has even issued official apologies from the church- against the advice of many conservatives. The thing is, this is not a spiritual matter, "ex cathedra," about which the pope is infallible. Neither was the inquisition or the crusades. That justifies the fact that the policy changed. This was a decision about how the priests could best represent God. Peter left his family when he became a man of God. I don't think that's a stretch of the scripture at all to say that other priests should do the same.

The church isn't a dictatorship at all. The pope is elected from the college of cardinals. They don't abuse their seat in the UN, they use it to promote moral behavior. I don't know why you're so ardently opposed to abstinence. If you think spreading the word of the Bible is evil, then that's your prerogative, but don't use your definition of evil as grounds for a political debate. The notion that the pope is the antichrist is long outdated, as the pope and the patriarch have met on many occasions, and relations between the two faiths are congenial.

[Simon666]

It is indeed not ex cathedra, but this indicates that even there they can be wrong. And that college of cardinals is not elected either but selected by the previous pope. This way they control a bit their own successor. It is a dictatorship, its billions of followers have nothing to say. And they not only promote abstinence, a good thing as far as I'm concerned, they really abuse their seat and also block and thwart family planning and giving correct information on condoms.

[gopman]

"but this indicates that even there they can be wrong"

I know they can be wrong in this case. It doesn't mean they are. If they think that priests can best serve their congregations, that's fine with me. To change their policy just to attract new priests would be self-destructive. They could also say abortion and divorce are okay, and they would get new members. But that's not their job. They are spreading God's word.

And why do the followers of the Pope need to say anything. They are just supposed to learn. The Pope is the one who is infalible on religious matters. He is the one with the "keys to the kingdom." If you are a Catholic, then you follow the Catholic church. If you are agnostic, you can make up your own. There's nothing stopping you from that. The selection of the new Pope and the appointment of cardinals isn't entirely political. No rational person in the world considers the Church a dictatorship. Should people who don't agree with something their priest says be able to vote out their priest?

[gopman]

As for having nothing to say, I go above the Pope's head every day. I talk to God.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by gopman
As for having nothing to say, I go above the Pope's head every day. I talk to God.
Does he talk back? :rolleyes: And if so, what does the voice inside your head say? Helter-skelter?

[gopman]

"Does he talk back?"

Why don't you try it and find out.

[Simon666]

All I know is that God hasn't spoken to anyone since Jezus according to christian faith, except to a few dubious saints like a sixteen year old French girl who heard voices in her head and went on a slaughter rampage against English blokes.

I guess God isn't very talkative to be quiet the last 2000 years. Maybe God is autistic. Or dead. Which brings me to one of my favorite silly jokes:

God is dead - Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead - God

[gopman]

Communication comes in multiple forms. Why do you assume to understand all the mysteries of God?

[Simon666]

Please enlighten us on this communication.

Let me guess. You're praying aka talking to God and noone talks back. You think a while about what would be right and in the end you think God has led your thought process, which I think is pretty vain from the part of your brain.

[Goofy Dick]

Whatever trips your trigger, I say. So what if dude wants to believe in a god, a religion or any other invisible man. If it makes him a better person, we are all better off for it.

Face it, as far as matters on a spiritual, alter-demensional reality is concerned, we, being alive in this physical realm, cannot possible say without a shadow of a doubt what is on the other side, if another side exists at all.

Much adoo over nothing we have any control over.

"As for me and my house, we shall serve logic and the dictates of reason"

Goofy Dick
Chapter one; verse 3.

[gopman]

I don't know how God works. Nobody does. All I know is that he does.

[Goofy Dick]

Sure....... Sure she does:angel:

[Missouri Mule]

Celibacy is insanely stupid and unnatural. You can blame it on the "House of Borgia" for this state of affairs.

http://www.aragon10.free-online.co.uk/popes.html

[JD3]

Originally posted by Goofy Dick
Whatever trips your trigger, I say. So what if dude wants to believe in a god, a religion or any other invisible man. If it makes him a better person, we are all better off for it.

Face it, as far as matters on a spiritual, alter-demensional reality is concerned, we, being alive in this physical realm, cannot possible say without a shadow of a doubt what is on the other side, if another side exists at all.

Much adoo over nothing we have any control over.

"As for me and my house, we shall serve logic and the dictates of reason"

Goofy Dick
Chapter one; verse 3.

Logic and reason are good. I support those qualities as well. But sometimes in life, you have to believe more than you know or can prove.

Now I don't support silliness like my God is bigger than yours or God wants me to kill myself if you don't send money (some televangelist whose name escapes me).

But I have lived long enough and seen enough to know that belief can be stronger than logic. Faith really can move a mountain. You just need to make sure the mountain needs moving and that your moving it makes the world better and not worse.

OK, so I am sappy at heart.;)

But Iam right as well.:)

[Voice Of Reason]

I am a Roman Catholic and I have no problem with allowing priests to marry..............Several of the 12 apostles including Peter (the first pope) were married..........

[Simon666]

It is hoped that his successor will change this. I agree with Missouri Mule for once that it is unnatural and stupid. I don't see why any catholic would have a problem with this and it might make the problem of too many pedophiles (and gays, but I don't have a problem with those) priests less bad.

[gopman]

If the Church feels that they can better teach me to live like Jesus by requiring celibacy of its priests, I can accept that, and I don't consider it stupid at all. I can also accept that they don't want to erode their moral foundation to attract new members.

[Simon666]

The catholic church believes that sex serves procreation only, not recreation. Can you accept that and do you stick to that too? :D

[gopman]

Yes

[Simon666]

Man oh man. Do they make catholics anymore hardcore than you? And where do you think you'll be seated? Second place next to Christ? :rolleyes:

I honestly expected a no, that as least some part of you was rational...

[gopman]

"that as least some part of you was rational..."

No one's perfect, and I don't compare myself to Jesus. Saying that is irrational is in itself irrational, and offensive.

[up2date]

Simon, is it really necessary to attack someone's faith? They believe. You don't. End of story.

You make some excellent points, but if you tone it down a bit you'll be far more effective. And you'll fit in better here.

[Simon666]

People in the US have too against muslim fundamentalists, me against all fundamentalists. I'm sorry, this will never change. You can ask it and I can try to keep to it, but it will be hard. What if I asked you not to portray or attack muslim fundamentalists negatively?

[up2date]

Originally posted by Simon666
People in the US have too against muslim fundamentalists, me against all fundamentalists. I'm sorry, this will never change. You can ask it and I can try to keep to it, but it will be hard. What if I asked you not to portray or attack muslim fundamentalists negatively? I have already intervened when people went too far with their attacks on Muslim fundamentalism. It's one thing to attack Muslim fundamentalists, it's another to label all Muslims fundamentalists. It's one thing to attack Christian fundamentalists, it's another to attack all Christian beliefs. Several posts up thread, I joined you in the condemnation of some of the Vatican's policies. I have no problem with that, but there is a line somewhere.

[Simon666]

Okay, I'll try to keep it down a bit. Is attacking inconsistencies in the Bible allowed? I'm planning a thread on Jewish aspects that are disregarded by most Christians yet are in the Bible too. For example, not to eat pork is in the Bible, while Christians do not keep to it, and that God created the world in seven days, as those crazy creationists believe based on the Old Testament, although they probably all eat pork.

[up2date]

Originally posted by Simon666
Okay, I'll try to keep it down a bit. Is attacking inconsistencies in the Bible allowed? As long as it's done in a respectful manner, it's fine.

[Captain America]

I live in Catholicville USA. There are almost as many catholic churches around here as there are taverns. I would say that out of all the people I have met that do go to chrch are 80+% Catholic. Even the ones that are not active in the church claim to be Catholic.

Not one of these people have ever told me that they have objections to priests being married. In fact, 100% of the Catholics I know adamently support allowing the priests to marry.

But the Vatican has a long tradition of supressing the role of the women in the church. It is now and always has been a concerted effort dating back to the council of Nicea (sp?). It is this reason and this reason alone the "Holy Bible" was concocted in such a manner that belittles, undermines and degrades the female of our species.

It will be a cold day in pergatory before they get up off of that philosophy. Such evidence of this "Man-love" is surfacing more and more in these modern times. The Catholic Church, and the representatives thereof, is being exposed for it's antics that were traditionally taboo to question or discuss. In fact, there was a time that the church was so oppressive, that anyone questioning it or criticizing it was decapitated or burnt at the stake. Times have changed...but some things NEVER change.

I know plenty of pissed-off Catholics too. Once the wool was removed from their eyes, they were never the same.

If I were to be religious, I would most likely be Catholic. In my area, Catholics are allowed to drink as much as their heart desires and even gamble on the Church's premises. That's MY kind of church!!;)

[gopman]

I don't object to it at all. But if the Church decides that they can best serve their parishoners by being celibate, then I will trust their judgement, the same way I wouldn't expect them to give me advice on economics.

[Missouri Mule]

It hasn't been serving anyone very well, IMV. It ought to be abandoned. This would also go a long way to allowing new blood to come into the priesthood. No one ought to be denied the right to a marriage and children. It is the natural way of life.

According to my understanding this came about as a result of the corruptness that had crept into the papacy. The celibacy business was supposed to stop that sort of thing. Of course the law of unintended consequences gave us something else; namely pedophiles and other evils.

[Captain America]

Well put Muley, and those few perverts make the entire organization look worse than it already is. That is why, I suppose, that many of my Catholic friends promote marriage in the priesthood.

I was married in a Catholic church. I had to attend premaritial classes. I asked the "Father" teaching the class WHY he became a priest. I was looking for him to tell me that it was a call too strong to go unanswered, as was Timothy's in the bible. Instead he told me this, "I was deathly afraid of having to get married to a woman. In my day, this was the only honorable way of getting out of that situation."

Duh!?!? He might as well had said, "Because I am as queer as a three dollar bill, and I couldn't handle coming out of the closet." And they had THIS GUY TEACHING pre-maritial classes???:banghead:

If they dropped the celebacy requirement, their resource pool for prospective priests would improve and the astigma of most Catholic priests being gay or perverted would be removed. But as it stands, by my observations, those astigmas are well founded. That has MANY o' Catholic folk I know very angry at their church right now.

[PatriotChick]

What's so wrong with priests getting married?

[Missouri Mule]

Nothing in my book. This is something that the Catholic Churck concocted because of corruption in the papacy. It was a nutty idea.

[Simon666]

I still believe it was because of a matter of power and possession of goods to remain united in the hands of the institution of the church instead of getting divided among the children of priests. Don't know anymore what book it came from, but made good sense.

[JLwH211]

Originally posted by Captain America

I was married in a Catholic church. I had to attend premaritial classes. I asked the "Father" teaching the class WHY he became a priest. I was looking for him to tell me that it was a call too strong to go unanswered, as was Timothy's in the bible. Instead he told me this, "I was deathly afraid of having to get married to a woman. In my day, this was the only honorable way of getting out of that situation."

Duh!?!? He might as well had said, "Because I am as queer as a three dollar bill, and I couldn't handle coming out of the closet." And they had THIS GUY TEACHING pre-maritial classes???:banghead:


Pre-marital classes were required to be married in a Catholic Church when I got married, and my husband and I dutifully attended each class. But we often wondered, wouldn't it make more sense to take pre-marital classes from someone who is actually married?

[ranger]

Does Rush need to go to another drug addict to get good counciling?

[Captain America]

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Yes, the priest that counciled me had absolutely no clue as to what he was talking about. It was very appearant to my wife and I. But she is a Catholic girl, and so we attended them all. A courthouse wedding would have worked for me. But after all, she is my wife, I give her everything she wants the very best I can. I love her something fierce. Even after all these years.:)

[ranger]

It is unfortunate that you had a bad experience. My wife and I went to something called "engaged encounter". Marriage encounter before you are married. It was a weekend group therapy session basically with one married couple for each engaged couple.

That was 30 years ago. hope it is still available as alternative.

[Voice Of Reason]

My wife and I had marriage counseling too.........I thought it was well spent time...........We were both catholics already and we did not have to do it but I am glad we did.