Posted on 01/14/2006 10:40:38 PM PST by Coleus
I've been to these places in more than one location, sockmonkey. I've had bad experiences each time. There's a habit I've found with these AU parishes -- they like to portray themselves as traditional Catholic.
It's a good bait to use, isn't it?
That whole traditional thing sort of falls apart when you meet the the priest's wife and kids.
I don't see it. The Mass (and lose the garnishment of quote marks, o.k.? It's officially approved) is a better translation of the Latin (of the pre-Reformation English church) than the current English Mass is of its Latin. It is reverent, perhaps a little archaic in its language, but I like that (the Latin of the Tridentine Mass you will also find to be a bit archaic, if you read Latin that well.) The average educated 17th c. Englishman, certainly the translators of the Mass, wrote the purest and most beautiful version of the language ever seen.
I don't get what you say about kids - nor about the priests. I do not know any former Anglican priests who have become Catholic priests, but the old-order Anglican priests (and that is the pool from which the A.U. Rite priests are drawn) tend to be old-fashioned, very reverent, perhaps a little fussy by modern standards, but "entitlement" is the last word I would use to describe any of those I have met. And as a long-time ultramontane High Church Episcopalian, I met a lot of them. I like them a whole lot better than the sport-shirted lounge lizard "hey hey what's happenin' baby?" types that infest the "modern" Episcopal churches.
Sometimes you bring it with you, and it colors everything you see, hear and do.
Bad experience...suppose that could be something with me...I have this weird expectation that a church billing itself as Catholic will actually be Catholic.
I will not accept that perversion known as Anglican Use.
Strangely the east has never had this rule and never run into problems.
Oh, please. The indulgence racket was a shameful scandal, and the reformers were right to protest it. As for marriage, I don't know about the others, but Luther got married after he was kicked out of the Catholic church.
while Thomas Cranmer already had one hidden in Germany
Don't confuse the Anglican Schism with the Protestant Reformation. Although the Anglicans eventually adopted many Protestant ideas, the Anglican church, unlike Protestantism, was indeed born of sexual sin...and poetically, it is now dying of sexual sin. It's worth pointing out that many priests have been secretly married throughout church history, and felt no need to protest. Simply wanting to marry, isn't usually enough. Even the married Rent-a-Priests mostly would come right back to Catholicism if allowed.
he was up all night with one of his children who was seriously ill. Feeling drained and haggard, he went to Mass the next morning, and the priest celebrating Mass ...had been up all night with a parishioner’s child who was dying of meningitis. A light bulb went off over my friend’s head: You can’t do both.
In all but the smallest Protestant churches I've attended, there have been plenty of pastors, elders, assistant pastors, etc -- there's always somebody on call. If one has a family emergency of his own, another one can fill in. Opening the Catholic priesthood to married men would greatly increas the number of priests, achieving the same result.
Those who live celibately are... an “eschatological sign” for the rest of us
It loses its value as a sign, when the general public is no longer confident that the "celibate" priest, is actually celibate. Scandal taints the reputation of the honest ones, unfortunately.
for those priests who still chose not to marry: Might there not be a corresponding diminishment of their public image, so that they would tend to be regarded more as pious bachelors than a special sign among us? Their freedom to get romantically involved with female parishioners gives such questions even more point.
The Eastern Catholics and Orthodox require marriage before ordination. Problem solved.
Another practical consideration is the financial cost of allowing priests to marry
An excellent point. If you want married priests you gotta pay for them somehow. Consider tithing. Or ask the Orthodox how they do it.
Also, the ministry could be greatly expanded at very low cost by elevating married deacons (who are generally employed and supporting families on their own) to the priesthood. Such men could lighten the burdens of the celibate parish priests (eg, by being on call an occasional night, performing weddings, that sort of thing).
It is clear that not a few homosexual men have entered the priesthood partly as a “cover” for their condition. Arguably, it would only make matters worse if they had to take on a wife as additional camouflage.
If married priests were considered normal, and straight men who intended to marry were numerous in seminaries, the homosexuals would not be able to use it as a refuge in the first place! It's well documented that homosexuals have bullied a lot of normal men out of seminary. One married Catholic deacon who posts at FR, pointed out that the homosexual priests fear nothing more than the possibility of a married priesthood being introduced.
In any event, it wouldn’t stop some of them from going after teenage boys, as has been amply demonstrated in other clerical milieu.
One Protestant church I attended, had 5 pastors. 4 were married; the single one was caught messing with a boy. So yes, it happens in other clerical milieu.
if you don’t find a sexual outlet, you become neurotic, or even worse.
If you don't have the gift of celibacy, that's true. I was unwillingly single, and a virgin (barely) til 38, and I can tell you that being single way too long was very damaging.
the libido doesn’t plot revenge if for whatever reason one is continent for a period of time.
Well, mine does.... LOL!
Protestant theologian H. Richard Niebuhr describing the creed of liberal Protestantism in an earlier American generation:
“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”
LOL! That's quite a presumption.
In any event, without doubt - and in no way affecting the force of this article and the correctness of the virtue of perfect continence (chastity) as practiced in the Church, you both need to read St. Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians. Chapter 9 would be the place to start for what I'm thinking. Pay close attention to verse 5.
For what it's worth, I'm an Evangelical who - in spite of the venom of the FR Torquemadists -- has seriously considered swimming the Tiber. (Though I must say that the Bosphorous has its attractions as well.) I find that there are issues I can't resolve, at least not yet, but my quest has made me much less antiCatholic than I used to be. In fact one of my prayers now is that Christendom will be reunited in my lifetime. So please understand my earlier post, not as an attack on Rome per se, but simply as an attack on the faulty logic of this article.
It's a discipline, not a doctrine. The writer also points out it does not contradict Scripture with the reference to Mt 19:12.
As a Protestant catholic* Christian reading this article and thread, I find it significant that no one mentions the advice, actually the commands, of the most effective celibate leader in the Church of all time: The Apostle Paul.
Not once is it recorded that Jesus Himself required celibacy for Church leaders... and we know from the holy scriptures a few of the Apostles were indeed married (yes including Peter...proof in the writing of Saint Paul some 20 years after the resurrection: "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" (I Cor. 9:4)
Is celibacy more practical for some duties...surely, and for those who are called, a great blessing. But to make it a total requirement....above and beyond what the Holy Spirit speaking through St. Paul instructed? Not a good thing to think oneself wiser than God's Holy word, be it individuals or a Church with its tradition.
"Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,..." (I Tim. 3:2)
"An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient." (Titus 1:6)
Clearly Saint Paul was assuming (most) Church leaders would be married--as were (most) respectable men in the ancient Jewish/Christian communities. Saint Paul did indeed encourage a celibate lifestyle, like his own, but never made it an absolute requirement for Church leadership. How then can the Church (continue) today to do so?
*(meaning being part of the Church of Jesus Christ catholic, that is universal.)
The author of the article lauds the heroic virtues of priestly celibacy. Virtues, as such, cannot be required, as they are a goal. The virtues of apostolic celibacy are many and varried and should be praised. They are quite different from the virtues of marriage, however.
The reasons the Roman Catholic Church requires celibacy are quite practical and "real world." I mentioned some of the challenges that would be faced if a married clergy were allowed in a previous post. There are many more.
Some folks confuse the practical reasons for the requirement of apostolic celibacy with the virtues. Their arguements sound silly, in my opinion. You are quite correct to point this out.
BTW, the water is fine.
Scripture definitively teaches that only Peter was, at one time, married.
"Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" (I Cor. 9:4)
Your verse reference is incorrect, should be verse 5 not 4, and you've quoted a corrupted text. Paul, being a celibate, would not have intended "wife" while referring to himself. The Greek "adelphaen gunaika" correctly translates in this context to sister woman, not sister wife.
"Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" 1 Corinthians 9:5
"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.
No requirement that a bishop must be married. If Timothy were to select a married man he could have been married only once.
"If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. " Titus 1:6
"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
"And Peter began to say unto him: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee. Jesus answering, said: Amen I say to you, there is no man who hath left house or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, Who shall not receive an hundred times as much, now in this time; houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions: and in the world to come life everlasting." Mark 10:28-30
"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
"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
Clearly St. Paul is praising the discipline of celibacy.
21 of the 22 Churches sui juris which comprise the Catholic Church, as a norm, ordain married men. The Latin Rite has chosen to follow the teachings and examples of Christ and St. Paul in the total sacrifice of one's self to serve the Lord. The question you should be asking is why so few "ministers", particularly those who wear the moniker "bible believing", heed the example set by Christ, the Apostles and St. Paul.
I'm honestly not suprised to hear that the Eastern Rite Bishops would be the strongest in their commentary.
They have the custom of married Clergy so have a much deeper understanding of how it dovetails into the Clerical life.
So few of us North Americans seem to have full idea of Theology of the Priesthood I would suspect there would be loads of confusion if the discipline were removed.
I've also noticed that most Catholics don't realize that the norm of daily Liturgy isn't a universal norm among Christians.
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.