Incorrect.
Suggest you read the following to improve your deficient knowledge of the topic.
Posted on 05/24/2009 3:26:18 AM PDT by MartinaMisc
'I would like to have a family and at the same time serve God."
By all accounts, the man who recently spoke those words is more than capable of doing both. The Rev. Alberto Cutié, a 40-year-old Roman Catholic priest, built a devoted international following through his service as pastor of the St. Francis de Sales parish in Miami Beach, his immensely popular Spanish-language radio and television ministry, and his widely distributed advice column. "Father Oprah," he was nicknamed, both for his gifts as a broadcaster and his empathy for the struggles so many face when it comes to love, sex, and relationships.
Such struggles, it turns out, were of more than just academic interest to the telegenic priest. Cutié's career imploded this month after a magazine published photos showing him kissing and embracing a brunette on the beach. In the uproar that ensued, Cutié admitted that he and the woman were in love, and that for nearly a year he had been struggling to resolve his feelings for her with his commitment to the church. The Archdiocese of Miami had little choice but to suspend him from his parish and media duties, and Cutié is now faced with an agonizing decision. Does he leave the priestly vocation that means so much to him and for which he has shown such flair? Or does he break with the woman he loves and yearns to share his life with?
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Oy vey. Here we go. There are many ways for a married man to serve God in the Church. Being a priest is NOT one of them. He can be a deacon, a counselor, head a ministry, work with a school system, be a director of religious education, work for catholic charities and on and on. The one thing a married man cannot be is a priest. If you are called to marriage, then you are not called to the priesthood in a Roman Catholic Church. He could even become orthodox and marry. Roman Catholics view marriage as a vocation. We also view the priesthood as a vocation. One cannot have 2 vocations. So tired of jenkinist/cutie Catholic priests. Either you are for us or against us; choose.
Well said.
We agree with you, WombToTomb - If Cutie wants to marry a woman he can always be a protestant minister, but he cannot be a Catholic Priest.
Just curious...since I’m not Catholic...what is the Biblical directive used for the celibacy of priests? We know Peter was married (how do you have a MIL if you’re not married)...and I’ve always wondered where the celibacy requirement is found in the Scriptures. Is it the Corinthians passage about how being single makes your “serving” more focused because you don’t have a wife to please?
I’ve often wondered that myself.
I wouldn’t trust him as a husband, either. A person who doesn’t care about his vows is just that.
Ego, Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,Ego,...
I wonder where in holy Scripture, New Testament or Old Testament, celibacy for priests or pastors is ever required?
Hmmmm, can’t seem to find it. But I guess Rome must know better than the Apostles, Evangelists, and Jesus Himself.
Paul says it is better to remain single and serve the Lord as a married person is very involved with material or worldy things because he has to look after a family and a wife where a single person can direct all their time to spiritual pusuits.
Mel
Enforcing celibacy was a reform effort. It wasn't needed as much in the Protestant split-off groups because they just didn't have the money or property to compare with the Church. At least, until TV ministries came along.
I am a little surprised the liberal Boston Globe isn’t denouncing this priest for being a homophobe (he wants to marry a woman instead of “marrying” another man). And surely the left will denounce him for being a potential “breeder” who will destroy the environment. And if the woman he wants to marry is attractive, he could be accused of “lookism.” The usual people who agitate for identity politics seem to be asleep at the wheel in this instance.
Thanks for the info
Dawn, I’ll be happy to answer. I have a little bit of insight into this and have given it more thought than many as my son is entering seminary next fall to be a priest.
First,I would like to point out a couple of things that are important when you consider the times that Jesus lived and chose His followers, and now.
When He began His ministry, he was a 30 year old unmarried male. He selected both single and married males to be his apostles. He did this for the same reason he baptised adults. He had to witness to the adults of the times He was in. Some were married, some were not. The adults then passed on the faith to their children, and thusly, were part of the christian faith by merit of being born in a christian family, much the same as Jesus was Jewish by virtue of being born into a Jewish family. This was the same process for selecting apostles and priests. He preached to the adults, they converted and followed Him. Since it was common and expected that most men would marry in their very early teens at that time and Jesus’ age was about 30, it was a conscieous decision for Him not to marry, and it was to be expected that most men of his age group would be married.
Paul was an exception here, and he drove the point home in scripture. He exhorted that it would be better to remain as he was (single) for the kingdom. As you mentioned, he also gives the why about it, so they can be concerned for the things of God instead of pleasing their spouse.
There are other scriptures, which I am sure will be pointed out to you, but we are not dependent on scripture alone for our Faith. Scripture itself tells us that Jesus did and said many more things than are written in this book, and if they were all written down, the world would not contain enough room to hold them all. This is where oral tradition comes in. Much of our Faith ( including putting all the writings we have today in the bible together as it did not happen until 400 years after the Church was born) was handed down by oral tradition. These teachings were the norm in Jesus’ day (hence the scripture that tells us to teach our children by speaking to them about these things when we are rising up, sitting down or whatever we are doing, to tell them of these things; to train them up in the way they should go). The early christians only had a letter here or there, there was no compiled scripture until 397 AD. The earliest christians went almost exclusively by oral tradition. Just look in Acts at the monolouge St. Stephen gave prior to his stoning. That was from memory of oral tradition. It is also very common in the world today in the middle east for this to happen, as it has always done.
I guess what I am trying to say, is that, while there is scriptural basis for all that catholics believe, we are not solely dependent upon it as we have the oral tradition that was handed down from the apostles as well. This is called our Deposit of Faith, and it is the Churches job to faithfully tend and protect it, as well as pass it down from one generation to the next. It cannot be altered, changed, added to or subtracted from. It is why we cannot flip flop on abortion, gay marriage, women priests,or any other dogma of the faith.
Priestly celibacy is not a dogma of the faith, it is a discipline of the Church, and can and is sometimes allowed in very limited circumstances. A discipline is considered the ultimate, or best way, to practice, but allows for exceptions because Jesus allowed for exceptions on a particular matter. He had NO women priests, nor have there ever been any, nor will there ever be any, but he did have married apostles. It was pointed out by Jesus’ chosen singleness, as well as Pauls exhortations, that this was preferred, but exceptions would and could be made. All of the exceptions come from a man who has been ordained a orthodox priest or a protestant minister who is already married, and converts to the Roman Catholic faith afterwards. Most of these men who want to convert are not allowed to be priests, but are ordained as deacons in the church, but there are a very few, who have the calling and would have been priests had they been Catholic at the time, they are admitted to the priesthood. I think they number under 300 in the world at this time. Generally, one who is called to marriage has NOT been called to the priesthood, they were just ignorant at the time of their marriage of their calling to the priesthood, and when they learned of their calling, they suffered. A married priest has a really tough road.
It is also noted in our Faith, that the priest acts “in persona Christi” for the faithful while consecrating the Eucharist into the body and blood of Christ and hearing confession. The priest has a bride, it is the Church. He has many children; the faithful of his parish. He is our example, our “Father” in Christ, as St. Paul pointed out so eloquently. He had, as all priests do, a claim on Fatherhood for his children in Christ. These are our truths, they are what have guided us through these 2000 plus years.
It is very well laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, along with every scriptural reference for each thing. I do recommend to anyone with questions to refer to it, as it is basically an explanation of the why we believe what we do. It is basically our primer on being Catholic; these are the rules, this is why we believe what we do. If you ever want to know why a Catholic does or doesn’t do something ( or if they should or shouldn’t be) this is the final arbitor of it.
Sorry so long, but there is rarely a one liner when it comes to explaning the Catholic position on something like this!
Of course, enforcing celibacy didn't really work all that well for this purpose. It reached its high point during the Renaissance, although most of the Popes and bishops pretended the young men they were favoring so egregiously were their nephews rather than their sons. There were exceptions, such as the Borgia popes, who were quite open about their illegitimate children.
This is how the term "nepotism" originated, which technically means "nephewism."
see post 16
post 16
Another case of a religion deciding that its requirements are more stringent than what the Bible asks - something all religions do, else we wouldn't have thousands of sects of Christianity. I have nothing against the religions, I'm currently in a Methodist church, but I won't ascribe to a religion itself because none of them take the Bible at pure face value.
I also meant to mention that in the scriptures where it says that a bishop must only be husband to one wife, it meant it as well. If a man became a bishop because he heard the good news as an adult but was already married, he could only be the husband of one wife. If she passed, he was not to remarry, even though it is perfectly ok for a widower to remarry if he is not a priest. That would seem kind of odd, if marriage and the priesthood were meant to go together. Why would it be denied to one christian and not to the vast number of christians if they were not set apart and asked by God to remain celibate? It is because it was the norm for men to marry young in that time, and Jesus understood that. That is why he led by example of what He desired by remaining single for the kingdom, and Paul pointed it out as well.
“Husband of one wife” is also interpreted to mean that the man could not have been divorced and remarried.
And also, when Christ cured Peter's mother in law of a fever, she rose up and waited on them.
If Peter's wife had been alive at the time, it would have been her place to wait on Christ and the disciples, not his mother in law. So it seems probably that he was a widower.
correct. And I assume it did so as well. It is interesting though, that scripture never speaks of the wives of the apostles. It is not known if the wives of any of the apostles were alive at the time they were called to ministry, nor any of the bishops. It is ambiguous if it was understood that none could currently be married, or if they were permitted to have once been married but never divorced.
Another practical matter would be martyrdom. How does a priest willingly lay down his life for the Church, when he knows that means he will leave behind a wife, possibly children who will have had no means of care? This could also be a reason why remaining celibate would have been preferable. How does one lay down his life while watching his wife be tortured? raped? his children? Since God made man, He knows man is weak in the face of watching his woman or child being tortured just so he will renounce his faith instead of being martyred, I would think?
Not a particularly strong argument.
All Christians, not just priests, are called to lay down their lives willingly for God if necessary.
Thank you for this statement. As an elder in a protestant Church, I often confront anti-Catholicism which makes claim to what appear to be non-biblical practices by Roman Catholics. I caution them that their conclusion is not so simple and that the Catholic practices are well thought out and documented and to their mind strongly biblical.
In fact it is lazy of them to automatically dismiss a practice without fully understanding. Also, if they knew church history they would see that the foundation us biblical protestants are standing on was first established by the Church we call Catholic.
Based on the newest inventions of some of the protestant Church which include that Jesus is not the only way and that the sexual immorality is not a constant but relative to our culture, I have come to appreciate the authority the Roman Church has in the hierarchical structure.
Unfortunately, many Catholics are unaware of the biblical origins of their practices and seem to follow them unaware. This causes others to denigrate the traditions without doing the harder study that would have them more fully understand the issues they think are so clear when they are not.
You are correct,we are all called to be martyrs for the faith, and it is not my actual argument, it was more of a line of thinking as to a reason why, but certainly not THE reasons why. I discussed reasons in post 16.
For starters:
"For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it." Matthew 19:12
"Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath left house, 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 possess life everlasting. And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first." Matthew 19:27-30 (emphasis added)
"Then Peter said: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee. Who said to them: Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive much more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." Luke 18:28-30 (emphasis added)
"But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided." 1 Corinthians 7:32-33
We know Peter was married
We know that Peter was married at one time. We also know, from Scripture, that the Apostles gave up everything to follow Christ.
You have to look in order to find it.
But I guess Rome must know better than the Apostles, Evangelists, and Jesus Himself.
Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.
Correction: Enforcing the discipline of celibacy that was already in place was a reform effort.
(1 Tim 4:1- NKJV) “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times SOME WILL DEPART FROM THE FAITH, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, FORBIDDING TO MARRY, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.”
It was imposed by Pope Gregory in the 11th. Century. I have heard it was due to two thngs:
1) So the holdings that grew through industry of priests would not be willed to sons and,
2) Royal families were irked that a smart peasant boy might get trained to be a priest, rise through the ranks, and have access to royal circles and then marry into the royal families.
Strange, Brigham Young managed quite well with several wives and dozens of children!
And isn’t it a requirement for rabbies since the beginning of time to be married and have a family?
Not sure...one of the requirements for a bishop is to be married.
Poor choice of the word "must" in your paraphrase. A more accurate choice would have been the use of "could".
"It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher," 1 Timothy 3:2
"Of one wife. The meaning is, not that every bishop should have a wife (for St. Paul himself had none), but that no one should be admitted to the holy orders of bishop, priest, or deacon, who had been married more than once." St. Jerome commentary on 1 Timothy 3:2, circa 400 AD.
Incorrect. That statement shows a very poor knowledge of Scripture.
This article fails to mention the numerous other women that have come forward claiming he had sexual relations with them also. He denies the charges, but since he has been breaking his vows and admits this relationship only after proof comes out, I doubt his words.
must was a bad choice of wording. No scripture in front of me when writing.
Doesn’t required celibacy mean you will get more repressed homosexuals as well as other groups that are trying to repress something in their id framework applying for the priesthood?
Hardly. While any sexual sin is sin, it is much less prevelant than in society in general. Why would homosexual men intentionally enter the priesthood in droves when they can just stay in society and actually have sex?
This arguement has always seemed so silly to me. While any priests sexually molesting children is wrong and should be punished severely, let me remind folks of this fact. molesting priests, less than 1 percent. molestors in the general population, 8 percent. Most molesters are married men, and much of the abuse done is to their own children.
Statistics just don’t point toward men entering the priesthood to have sex with other men. They ususally go to San Fransico for that.
Chap. 4, Ver. 3 "Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats. He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Encratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the Church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons, though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance." St. Jerome, commentary on 1 Timothy 4:3, circa 400 AD. (emphasis added)
I always find it humorous how you linguistic literalists always resort to cherry picking Scripture; heavily abridged and edited versions of the original by the way, but are at a loss to explain other passages which contradict your assertions.
Best you heed to counsel of St. Peter:
"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16
From the other article (in Spanish): Muchos especulan que la misteriosa mujer es una ex Miss Colombia, lo cual el Padre Alberto rechaza. Otras mujeres anónimas también alegan haber estado con el Padre Alberto.
Translation:
Many speculate that the mysterious woman is an ex-Miss Columbia, which Father Alberto denies. Other anonymous women women also allege that they have been with Father Alberto.
Incorrect.
Suggest you read the following to improve your deficient knowledge of the topic.
Thank you for your reasoned response.
Incorrect.
Good points.
Frankly, if a man is a fornicator, he’s not suited for any ministry position, in any church worthy of the name. The issue of his being a priest is peripheral to the issue of his simply being a creep.
This led to a number of problems, including simony. Parishes became family businesses and were all too often run as such.
But the big problem was that this sort of proprietary parish system in effect gave the secular authorities far too much power over the Church. Until the time of Hildebrand kings appointed bishops and this gave them power of the Church. The Church - and I mean here especially the very powerful monasteries, for example at Cluny - wanted independence from secular powers.
Hildebrand saw that the only way to do that was to, in effect, make every parish priest a monk. Hildrebrand famously said something like "we can't free the Church from the kings until we first free the priests from their wives."
And it worked really well. The Church became a power in its own right and essentially ruled Europe for several centuries. Until the Reformation, which was in effect a sort of reverse power grab by the kings, like especially Henry VIII.
The main point is that priestly celibacy was supposed to be the exception rather than the rule. To this day this is the situation with our Orthodox brothers. Orthodox parish priests are required to be married before ordination. And it isn't just the Orthodox. Within the Roman Catholic Church we have our Eastern Rite branch, which follows the venerable Orthodox rule. Just to be clear, the Catholic Church ordains many, many married men as priests today, and nobody seems to have a problem with that. We need to make the Eastern Rite rule the norm within the Western Rite.
I believe that the celibacy rule should be dropped for the Western rite. Forcing men to be celibate only encourages homosexuals and other social misfits to seek Holy Orders. It doesn't fit the times. Unlike in the Middle Ages, instead of attracting the smart and ambitious to the priesthood we now attract the socially inept and sexually confused. And we pay for it big time. I have a friend who was molested by a priest as a boy. I have a nephew who experienced the same. I know one priest who's spending the rest of his life in prison for a couple of decades as a serial molester.
I find it terribly frustrating that the Church can't seem to make this obviously necessary change despite the terrible scandals of recent years.
I think there are many people, Protestant and Catholic, who go into the religious life because they think that zealous devotion to God will help them control desires they recognize as sinful. Unfortunately, this seldom works, particularly as people in positions of authority in any church are subject to many temptations. One sees this in Protestants and Catholics alike. And Satan does like to tempt and ruin those among us who could, if pure, make major contributions to fulfilling God’s will on earth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.