Skip to comments.Do the Pope’s Remarks Undermine Celibacy?
Posted on 08/03/2013 3:02:27 PM PDT by ebb tide
.... Therefore, Francis is being naive when, he says, referring to the alleged presence of a lobby of gay priests within the Vatican ranks that the problem isnt having the orientation. The problem is making the lobby. The fact is, that any group with a strong common identity is a natural lobby which effects an organization. ....Pope Franciss remarks have implications for the church far beyond a pastoral approach to homosexual priests.
This Pope has yet to demonstrate to me that he’s a very deep thinker. Certainly he hasn’t thought deeply about this issue.
Celibacy is NOT the cause of sexual molestations. Homosexuality is the culprit.
what about guy on girl molestation?
Same thing. It all leads to pedophilia.
Most pedophiles are known by their victims, they could be fathers, father in laws, step-fathers, teacher, coaches, Sunday school teachers.
So..........if a man you know fits this profile — relative, teaches history at high school, coaches the girls softball team and teaches Sunday School — usually they are even married......watch out!
We already know from history that homosexual men in the Catholic clergy have been preying on young seminarians and boys all the way from local parishes into the Vatican is certainly not a recent aberration. The Orthodox tradition, which does and has always allowed married priests, does not have the same problems as the Roman Catholic clergy does in this area - at least not to the extent, anyway. Could Pope Francis be slowly moving towards relaxing the celibacy rule for priests and would this help to ameliorate the homosexual "problem" for the church?
Seeing as the Roman Catholic Church has been relaxing her prohibition on married priests,...Psst, boat girl - the Church allows and always has allowed married priests. But you know that, right?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
But see I have personally explained this multiple times. If it is ignorance, it is deliberate.
That really wasn't the question. But, since it is inferred that the Roman Catholic Church has always allowed married men to join the priesthood, according to you, perhaps you can explain why Pope John Paul II, in his 1992 pastoral letter entitled, " PASTORES DABO VOBIS (I Will Give You Shepherds)" states:
In this light one can more easily understand and appreciate the reasons behind the centuries-old choice which the Western Church has made and maintaineddespite all the difficulties and objections raised down the centuriesof conferring the Order of Presbyter only on men who have given proof that they have been called by God to the gift of chastity in absolute and perpetual celibacy.
The Synod Fathers clearly and forcefully expressed their thought on this matter in an important proposal which deserves to be quoted here in full: "While in no way interfering with the discipline of the Oriental Churches, the Synod, in the conviction that perfect chastity in priestly celibacy is a charism, reminds priests that celibacy is a priceless gift of God for the Church and has a prophetic value for the world today. This Synod strongly reaffirms what the Latin Church and some Oriental Rites require, that is, that the priesthood be conferred only on those men who have received from God the gift of the vocation to celibate chastity (without prejudice to the tradition of some Oriental Churches and particular cases of married clergy who convert to Catholicism, which are admitted as exceptions in Pope Paul VI's Encyclical on priestly celibacy, No. 42). The Synod does not wish to leave any doubts in the mind of anyone regarding the Church's firm will to maintain the law that demands perpetual and freely chosen celibacy for present and future candidates for priestly ordination in the Latin Rite. The Synod would like to see celibacy presented and explained in the fullness of its biblical, theological and spiritual richness, as a precious gift given by God to his Church and as a sign of the Kingdom which is not of this world, a sign of God's love for this world and of the undivided love of the priest for God and for God's People, with the result that celibacy is seen as a positive enrichment of the priesthood".
It is especially important that the priest understand the theological motivation of the Church's law on celibacy. Inasmuch as it is a law, it expresses even before the will of the subject expressed by his readiness. But the will of the Church finds its ultimate motivation in the which configures the priest to Jesus Christ the Head and Spouse of the Church. The Church, as the Spouse of Jesus Christ, wishes to be loved by the priest in the total and exclusive manner in which Jesus Christ her Head and Spouse loved her. Priestly celibacy, then, is the gift of self and Christ his Church and expresses the priest's service to the Church in and with the Lord.
That the Roman Catholic Church (the Latin rite) allows married men to join the priesthood who were priests within other rites, was not the issue. A Latin rite priest cannot marry, can he? It is disingenuous to pretend that celibacy was never a part of the Roman Catholic canon law. Married clergy are allowed today as exceptions in Pope Paul VI's Encyclical on priestly celibacy, No. 42. That this is a recent addition is undeniable.
So, Mrs.Don-o, my question to you remains respectfully: Seeing as the Roman Catholic Church has been relaxing her prohibition on married priests, do think that by allowing faithful, married heterosexual men to be ordained into the priesthood it will help or hurt the "homosexual" problem going on there? And, could Pope Francis be slowly moving towards relaxing the celibacy rule for priests and would this help to ameliorate the homosexual "problem" for the church?
First he though he could walk on water, then he figured he could breathe underwater, and finally he decided to get a bigger bass boat and catch two of every kind of rodent to take aboard with him.
He got the boat but when the big rats started eating the little white mice it was just too much. He started shooting at his crew of rodents with an old 30-06. By the time the boat sank and most of his rodent collection had managed to swim to safety the Sheriff and an EMS truck were carrying him away in a straight jacket.
I admire Francis more than any other Pope in recent history, but I never forget he, like all the others, is a flawed human being who needs the Blood of Jesus as much as any other, even the basest, that walks the Earth.
It's going to get increasingly tiresome, having to follow after and explain "what he really meant to say."
Even Pope Benedict wasn't sufficiently wary of the press, as in the incident where he said that an AIDS-infected homosexual prostitute who decided to use a condom out of concern for others' well-being might be said to be taking a step in the right direction.
The Western (Latin) Church does have married men in Holy Orders, i.e. deacons, and that is a truly new thing since the Council 50 years ago. In the USA we now have more married deacons (15,000) than we have priesta in religious orders (14,000 Franciscan, Jesuits, etc.)
It is possible and -- I say this guardedly --- "imaginable" that the Church would OK married deacons to become priests.
But it doesn't seem likely.
It is likewise possible and imaginable that the Church would OK more Western (Latin) Catholics to switch over and become Byzantine Catholics --- our Byzantine Catholic Churches do ordain married men. Pope Francis himself had the role in Buenos Aires of being the official hierarch for both the Byzantines and the Latins.
I've known of that to happen just once: a married Latin-rite man who got ordained as a Byzantine-rite priest. But that's exceedingly rare.
That's as much as I can say!
You’ve been here long enough to know the rules on the Religion Forum. Saying something is “deliberate” is both mind reading and attributing motive.
Thank you, also, for confirming that married priests are the exception and not the rule for the Latin rite. Do you personally see a cross benefit that, in allowing married clergy, the Catholic Church could be more selective in whom they ordain into the priesthood and could afford to weed out the homosexually inclined applicants because of that? I know that there is an acknowledged dearth of men applying for the priesthood and that this scarcity may explain why many men, that would have been weeded out in the past, were permitted to continue to ordination in spite of suspected homosexual leanings. I just think that the Catholic Church could afford to be more choosy if married men were welcomed into the priesthood. But, that's just my opinion, FWIW.
I think the real reason for the dearth of priestly vocations comes from the clergy and laity's cowardly de-facto surrender to the corrupt Spirit of the Age on the question of contraception. In other words, although the official teaching of the Church against contraception has not changed, and cannot change, on most Catholics' Top 25 Moral Priorities list, it's somewhere between 26 and infinity.
As a result, Catholic childbearing patterns and just like American childbearing patterns in general: 1.7 - 2.0 kids per completed family size.
With only 1.7 - 2.0 kids to provide you with grandchildren, very few Catholic parents are going to encourage their kids to be vowed celibates. And with no parental example of doing even a tiny bit of sexual abstinence (like NFP), kids don't grow up believing that sexual abstinence is possible or plausible for adults.
It's the root of so many problems. And not only for Catholics.
For instance, if you don't expect any heterosexual adults to abstain, ever, how could you demand that homosexuals abstain, ever?
Contraception has changed our expectations of adult behavior; it has deeply weakened any lifetime vocation based on anything other than self-serving and personal satisfaction.
Similarly, Philippe Delhaye wrote: "During the first three or four centuries, no law was promulgated prohibiting clerical marriage. Celibacy was a matter of choice for bishops, priests, and deacons. ... The apostolic constitutions (c. 400) excommunicated a priest or bishop who left his wife 'under pretense of piety' (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 1:51).".
However, the 19th-century Protestant historian Philip Schaff evidences that by the early fourth century priestly celibacy-continence was not a novelty, stating that all marriages contracted by clerics in Holy Orders were declared null and void in 530 by Emperor Justinian I, who also declared the children of such marriages illegitimate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy)
I'm going to have to disagree with you about contraception being the root of all that is wrong with our current society. I believe contraception and, as a consequence, abortion are symptoms of a morally corrupt society. Sex outside marriage and adultery didn't just begin once contraception and abortion became legal, they had always existed as sins of fallen humanity. Read the Old Testament for plenty of examples of this. Forms of contraception AND abortion, along with child murder after birth, were common ways of dealing with the consequences of illicit sex. The legalizing of the ways to prevent childbirth certainly DID seem to make sexual conduct more widespread and acts once considered shameful and rejected by the moral segment of society have now become commonplace and it's the virgins before marriage that have become the exception instead of the rule. It is the ever-increasing permeation of evil in this world and which will wax worse and worse.
But getting back to the subject of marriage for Catholic priests, perhaps parents would not be disinclined to have sons join the priesthood if they could have marriage and families. I lean towards this helping rather than hurting the church and, as I said, may help to ameliorate the need to accept men who have homosexual tendencies and the subsequent problems they bring to their parishes.
I can see that you are making these observations in good will, and I thank you for them.
I think it is impossible for the Church to allow men who are already priests to marry (for one thing, they’ve already made vows of celibacy and the Church is not in a position to release them from vows en masse), plus it has never been done in that sequence, priesthood —> marriage, historically . BUT -—
BUT t’other way around, marriage —> priesthood — ordaining men who are already married -— is historically and canonically a possibility.
There is no intrinsic, theological reason why a married man cannot later be ordained a priest. I don’t think ~any~ Catholic scholar, however traditional, would disagree with that in theory.
“Because of this the church has tried to screen out homosexual persons from the priesthood. The all-male environment of seminaries and the ordained priesthood afford a safe-haven for homosexuals. Men with same-sex attraction, under the cover of celibacy, can easily date and engage in couple type activities without raising an eyebrow.”
I that explains the instances of abuse peaking in the late 70’s/early 80’s and dwindling down to almost nothing. It hasn’t raised any eyebrows in the greater culture for a long time, at least in some places. I bet that gay men becoming priests has declined at the same rate as the abuse did, as the gay priests that molested boys died and weren’t replaced by more gay men joining up. By the early 70s there were whole communities of openly homosexual men living together, something that never happened on that level before, at least in the modern era. They could get jobs, and in some of them they were celebrated, acedemia, fashion, politicsthey were on TV and in popular culture more and more. The 80s were more extreme, the following decades more so and on to what we have today.
Now they dont need to hide anywhere, they can get married in 13 states with several others recognizing those marriages, in many areas it is against the law to discriminate against them. If they want to get into religion, there are many faiths that will now happily put them in positions of leadership where they can be openly gay in relationships, and never have the Churchs unchanging plain teaching as concerns homosexual acts hurt their feelings. I mean, how likely is a group that still doesnt accept civil divorce and remarriage, as well as birth control within marriage to go ahead and accept homosexual relationships? Just a theory.
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.