Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope Francis answers questions from journalists in return from Holy Land
Catholic World Report ^ | May 27, 2014

Posted on 05/28/2014 11:49:45 AM PDT by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 next last
To: NYer; piusv; BlatherNaut
Subscribing to pessimism seems to be the purview of traditionalist catholics.

And subscribing to such absurd optimism as a "New Springtime" and a "New Pentecost" and "atheists can go to Heaven" and "prosleytism is solemn nonsense" in the current Devastation in the Vineyard seems to be the purview of novus ordo catholics.

Attending traditionalist masses also excludes participants from the reality of life around them.

So 1500 years of Catholics, including popes, were excluded from the reality of life around them, until some bugger named Bugnini opened the eyes of contemporary catholics to "reality"?

21 posted on 05/28/2014 6:30:43 PM PDT by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Says one who has himself benefited from an annulment.


22 posted on 05/28/2014 6:33:49 PM PDT by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Attending traditionalist masses also excludes participants from the reality of life around them.

Would you please clarify that statement before I pop a blood vessel?

23 posted on 05/28/2014 6:55:46 PM PDT by Legatus (Keep calm and carry on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide; Legatus
So 1500 years of Catholics, including popes, were excluded from the reality of life around them, until some bugger named Bugnini opened the eyes of contemporary catholics to "reality"?

You missed the point. At a TLM, What is the percentage of divorced/remarried or divorced/living with girlfriend catholics that comprise the congregation? Assuming, of course, that you can identify them.

24 posted on 05/28/2014 8:36:59 PM PDT by NYer ("You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears." James 4:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

There is no such thing as mandatory clerical celibacy.

In the Roman Church, priests are chosen from among those who have chosen celibacy.


25 posted on 05/29/2014 12:41:31 AM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide; NYer; piusv; BlatherNaut

Ever since the 60’s, people have been criticizing the orthodox for not having the sunny disposition of the dissenters. You know, Charlie Curran is such a pleasant, fun guy, compared with Fr. Gommar Depauw!

There’s a very simple reason for this: Ever since the 60’s, the dissenters have been winning, again and again and again...

Look how hysterical and bitter the dissenters were during the pontificate of BXVI!


26 posted on 05/29/2014 12:49:40 AM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The policy was instituted in after the Middle Ages largely as a response to rampant corruption in the Church, primarily nepotism and simony. I question whether it is still necessary. Many Catholic priests are already married. And they do just fine. Mandatory celibacy should not be a requirement for service in the priesthood. They should be free to marry if they want.


27 posted on 05/29/2014 6:35:02 AM PDT by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

Of course many do not keep that vow.

I found out several years ago that the priest who married my wife and I was forced to leave the priesthood. His huge crime: He fell in a love with a woman.

So sad, he truly loved the Church and serving as a priest.

Holy matrimony and holy orders need not be mutually exclusive.


28 posted on 05/29/2014 6:38:37 AM PDT by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

It’s not that simple... and the problem can be seen by changing just a few words in the example:

“I found out several years ago that the marriage counselor who helped my wife and I was forced to leave the profession. His huge crime: He fell in a love with another woman.”

A priest—who has taken the Church as his Bride—has no more business “falling in love” with another woman than I do (I’m married to a lovely woman, myself). He has a grave moral obligation to guard his heart; and those who were charged with his priestly formation had the grave responsibility of training him in ways to guard his heart thusly.

Jesus Himself encouraged celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom (cf. Matthew 19:10-12). St. Paul said that celibacy was the preferred state for those who minister (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:1-7). St Paul goes so far as to say the following:

“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.” (1 Cor 7:32-34)

There’s often a sort of sentimental “offense on someone else’s behalf” in cases like this—akin to the idea of “Well... I’m free to have sex and intimate companionship with my spouse, and it doesn’t seem right to deprive someone else of that, so let’s get rid of the celibacy requirement for Latin Catholic priests!” That’s soft-hearted... but it’s short-sighted, too. Priests who are married have a divide in their lives which others don’t have with secular careers—or even with Protestant ministries. There are decisions which no man should be forced to make (e.g. if your 5-year-old daughter is dying across town, and a fallen-away parishioner is dying in front of you, do you give the last Sacraments to the dying man/woman who may be in a state of mortal sin, or do you leave him/her in order to be at the bedside of your daughter?). Should he abandon a soul to a serious risk of damnation, simply out of a desire to be at the deathbed of a daughter who’s in a state of grace?

Moreover, some of the strongest advocates for the celibacy requirement are *married priests!* They, of all people, have lived with the state of being torn in contrary directions—short-changing their wives and families in order to dispense the Sacraments, etc. Fr. Dwight Longnecker (a married Anglican priest who converted to the Catholic Church) comes to mind, in that regard.


29 posted on 05/29/2014 7:03:33 AM PDT by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NYer; ebb tide; piusv
Subscribing to pessimism reality seems to be the purview of traditionalist catholics.

We have a Pope who pointedly references Orthodox practices, reacts positively to Kasper's heretical theology, allows Kasper to speak in his name, makes a cold call to a woman living in adultery and gives her the green light, and staffs his inner circle with like minds who have also been very busy spouting off to the media. To assume none of this is relevant to the potential outcome of the synod is to bury one's head in the sand.

Attending traditionalist masses also excludes participants from the reality of life around them.

Seriously? How, pray tell, does the Holy Mass one attends have any bearing on one's awareness of "the reality of life around them"? Intentional or not, your post comes off as a gratuitous and stereotypical attack on traditional Catholics. It implies that we've constructed our own reality, and are out of touch with the big picture. Nothing could be further from the truth. Personally, I don't know any Catholics whose families have been spared the effects of the post-VII moral collapse. I have seen the destructive effects of divorces (and easy annulments) on my nieces and nephews. Any change in praxis which further undermines the Sacrament will lead to an increase in broken homes.

Most catholic pastors are confronted with these blended catholic families and look to the Holy See for some guidelines on how to deal with these "real world" issues.

If that were the only focus, why the full court press by the Pope and his hand-picked acolytes to promote the idea that "changes" must be made, and that 50% of marriages are not valid (by their criteria, I would have to include mine, although I didn't know it until I heard what Cardinal Kasper had to say :-0!). I think people ought to be forgiven for taking these prelates at their word rather than spinning a Pollyanna interpretation of their widely publicized comments, which taken together appear to telegraph a very definite agenda).

The catholics who attend the TLM, are those who understand and choose to practice the tenets of their faith. It is commensurate on them and us to pray for their brothers and sisters in the faith, who have lost their way. More importantly, your prayers are needed for the pope and the upcoming synod.

Ironically, though the Pope has publically mocked traditional Catholics, and in the case of the FFI, is brutally persecuting them, traditional Catholics are, as a group, the ones most likely to pray regularly and fervently for him and his intentions.

30 posted on 05/29/2014 7:15:26 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: paladinan

Yes, but I can find a million passages in the Bible where Holy Matrimony is also glorified. Jesus in particular strongly supported the institution of marriage. He performed his first miracle at a wedding ceremony. No where does Jesus say that you must be celibate and single to be a priest. Neither does Paul. In fact the priesthood is hardly mentioned in the New Testament. The priesthood is mentioned in the Old Testament extensively and yes priests were married and had children. Mandatory clerical celibacy is even relatively new the Catholic Church. For the first 1,000 years of Church history, the overwhelming majority of priests and bishops were married men. Orthodox priests in the East are permitted to marry. Catholic priests in Greece, the Ukraine, and the Middle East are permitted marry. Celibacy in Third World regions such as Africa is often ignored by the local clergy. Here in the US the number of priests continue to decline as the number of deacons continues too increase (deacons are permitted to be married). It is only a matter of time before priests in the West will be permitted to marry. Even the current Pope has indicated this policy is subject to change if you read the above article.


31 posted on 05/29/2014 7:17:54 AM PDT by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: paladinan

“Moreover, some of the strongest advocates for the celibacy requirement are *married priests!”

I have yet to see a married Catholic priest say he thinks the discipline of celibacy is bad for the Church today and should be suspended. In fact, I can only recall praise of the discipline coming from them. I think that is because the ones that care enough to bother to become ordained married Catholic priests in the first place are already very conservative, at least that I have observed.

On the other hand, try finding a single person of any faith that accepts abortion, ‘gay marriage,’ and priestesses who also thinks the latin Catholic discipline of celibacy is valuable and should be continued. They invariably not only don’t like it but actually hate it.

FReegards


32 posted on 05/29/2014 7:37:10 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: paladinan

I just finished reading Corinthians 7:1-7

Paul has NO issues with marriage. He does condemn sexual activity outside of marriage. No mention of priests here. Little is known of Paul’s personal family. Most Biblical scholars believe Paul was married at one time and now is either widowed or divorced (perhaps his wife did not share in his conversion). At any rate, at the time Paul wrote this letter, he is an older man. He has decided for himself that he does not want to get remarried as he is near death. Paul is in 60s when he writes most of his letters, far beyond the average life expectancy of the typical person living at that time. Paul also believes Jesus is returning very soon. So this the context in which the passage should be read.


33 posted on 05/29/2014 7:42:01 AM PDT by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines; paladinan
No where does Jesus say that you must be celibate and single to be a priest.

Actions speak louder than words. Jesus is the High Priest and He did not marry. Priests are an alter Christus (other Christ) and can give their entire existence to the priesthood in imitation of Christ.

Orthodox priests in the East are permitted to marry.

No they aren't. They must marry before ordination. Once ordained, no priest can marry.

34 posted on 05/29/2014 9:50:33 AM PDT by ELS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ELS

I don’t think priests are even mentioned in the Bible. Jesus was a messenger, teacher, example, savior, son of God and God but I don’t recall mention of Priest.


35 posted on 05/29/2014 9:53:30 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ELS

Then why not allow married men in the Catholic Church apply for ordination as it is done in the Greek Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Catholic Church, Middle Eastern Catholic churches, and Orthodox churches?

Once again there is NOTHING absolutely NOTHING in the Bible requiring priests to be celibate. Not in the Old Testament, not in the Gospels. In point of fact, priests were married men in the Bible from Aaron on down.


36 posted on 05/29/2014 10:38:19 AM PDT by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
Yes, but I can find a million passages in the Bible where Holy Matrimony is also glorified.

Well... of COURSE it is! Were you expecting otherwise? Why would support of celibacy require that anyone denigrate marriage? Both are very good... though the celibate life is more suited to the consecrated ministry, for practical reasons (e.g. not having a divided heart, cf. 1 Cor 7) as well as for spiritual reasons (a celibate priest is a "sign" pointing to the fact that all marriage is a mere prefigurement--though a key and important prefigurement--of our ultimate "marriage/union" to God in Heaven [God willing]; a celibate priest or nun "skips" the sign and embraces the "Real Thing", as a living reminder that we are ultimately to do the same). Marriage between husband and wife, beautiful and Sacramental as it is, will pass away (cf. Matthew 22:30); our union with God, once established in Heaven, will not.

If you want a clearer and deeper explanation, check our St. John Paul II's "Theology of the Body"; it's a real eye-opener.

No where does Jesus say that you must be celibate and single to be a priest. Well... come on, now. Are you doing a "sola Scriptura" approach, here? Catholics don't believe in that illogical, unbiblical, self-contradictory tradition of men.

As to your point: no, it's not strictly necessary for a priest to be celibate (St. Peter was married, after all, and the NT is replete with references to the ordained ministers being married, including bishops); but it's the wisest choice, and both Jesus and St. Paul strongly recommend it... for very good reasons. The Latin Church made the (very wise, IMHO) decision to restrict the ordained priesthood to celibate men, so as to free them from divided cares (cf. 1 Cor 7:32-34).

Orthodox priests in the East are permitted to marry.

ELS answered this one; that's not quite accurate. The Orthodox Churches allow married men to become priests, but priest clergy cannot marry after ordination.

Celibacy in Third World regions such as Africa is often ignored by the local clergy.

Come, now! This isn't a good argument for *anything*, apart from an argument toward strengthening the formation and admission standards of priests! Would you seriously suggest that the Church's teaching on premarital sex (i.e. that it's a mortal sin) should be "changed", simply because an overwhelming number of people ignore that law of God? I wouldn't...

Here in the US the number of priests continue to decline as the number of deacons continues too increase (deacons are permitted to be married).

The number of faithful Catholics in the USA continues to decline, as well; should we hold out a hope that faithfulness to the Church will become optional? You're also assuming a causal relationship that's unproven (and even unprovable); a sex-saturated society could certainly expect to see a decrease in those willing to "die to self" enough to surrender their sexuality to God alone, just as a sex-saturated society could expect to see a decline in Catholics who refrain from divorce, contraception, extramarital sex, etc. Even the current Pope has indicated this policy is subject to change if you read the above article. I know it is (it's a discipline, not an irreformable dogma); I never argued that it was impossible. I merely argue that it is a good rule, put in place for good (and Christ-centered, Christ-given) reasons, and that it would be very unwise to remove it simply as a concession to a society which can't imagine life without genital activity.
37 posted on 05/29/2014 11:50:41 AM PDT by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: paladinan

I am simply saying that holy matrimony is an equally acceptable state for a priest as being single and celibate.

We have a number of married priests in our archdiocese and they are just as good, just as holy as the single celibate priests. A married priesthood is in the tradition of the early Church. Required clerical celibacy did not become institutionalized until after the Middle Ages.

Even the Pope recognizes the current celibacy requirement is not dogma etched into stone and that the policy is subject to change.


38 posted on 05/29/2014 12:01:21 PM PDT by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
I just finished reading Corinthians 7:1-7. Paul has NO issues with marriage.

Good grief! Were you assuming that I thought he *did*? Again: we don't have to tear down marriage in order to build up celibacy, any more than we have to tear down Mary and the Saints in order to build up Jesus!

Most Biblical scholars believe Paul was married at one time and now is either widowed or divorced (perhaps his wife did not share in his conversion).

With all due respect: I've heard enough "theories from [usually modernist] theologians" to last me 100 lifetimes (including "theologians" who speculate that Jesus was married ["the Bible doesn't say that He wasn't, does it?", as they say]! That's simply empty speculation with no substantial data, and it flies in the face of 2000 years of Catholic patrimony.

Beyond that: it's utterly plain that St. Paul is holding up celibacy as the PREFERRED state for the man or woman of God (especially in the ministry); no one can read 1 Cor 7 reasonably and conclude anything else. No, he doesn't say that it's a general mandate (he explicitly denies that it's a general mandate, several times); he says that, if someone is incapable of living up to this standard should marry, rather than sin through lust (cf, Jesus' own words: "He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." -Matthew 19:12)

Re: all the other points: we either believe (as the Catholic Church teaches) that the Scriptures are inerrant, or we do not. We are not free to assume that the teachings of St. Paul are so tainted with self-interest that St. Paul is encouraging celibacy only on the basis of his own waning libido (i.e. "I'm not eager for sex, so no one else should be concerned with it, I guess!")! The Holy Spirit included those words in Sacred Scripture for a reason, despite what modernist theologians might speculate and invent.
39 posted on 05/29/2014 12:01:55 PM PDT by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: paladinan

If you read Paul carefully in all of these passages, yes you hear him saying he has chosen to remain chaste for the remainder of his life. He says this is best for him at this stage in his life. He is in his sixties when he wrote most of his letters which was quite old for that time in history-—considering life expectancy at that time was about 40. No one in their right mind would insist a young 20 or 30 year old would refrain from marriage in order to the join the priesthood. Paul is simply saying that is saying that he is very old and being single is best for him at this point in his life. He has no issues with the married state. You are reading into the Bible rather than reading it the way it is written. Paul never insists that anyone adopt celibacy unless they choose to. Because of his advanced age, it is no surprise that he prefers that for himself.

An interesting aside. I have noticed in my own archdiocese that the age of seminarians entering into the priesthood is significantly older than it was a number of years ago. For those interested in keeping the celibacy requirement, this could be seen as a positive trend. At least many if not most of the new recruits are older men, presumably sexually mature, most have been around the block a few times, are subject to a full battery of psychological examinations, and know full well what is expected of them.


40 posted on 05/29/2014 12:22:21 PM PDT by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson