Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A message from Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.
Ignatius Press ^ | Apr.27, 2002 | Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.

Posted on 04/28/2002 12:35:48 AM PDT by history_matters

 

A message from Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., Publisher, Ignatius Press.

In the papers, on the talk shows, the mantra is repeated: the cure for the present scandals is a married clergy. Of course, celibacy has nothing to do with these scandals: 1) Look at the Anglican church, which may soon be bankrupt in western Canada because of sex abuse lawsuits. 2) The majority of reported cased are of homosexual relations with young boys, not pedophilia; the perpetrators wouldn't be marrying women even if they had the chance. (And what kind of woman would marry these twisted souls?)

And, of course, all the discredited myths about the discipline of celibacy in the Catholic Church are trotted out.

For example:

The truth is that the Church's obligation of celibacy goes back to the apostles in an *unbroken* line. And the motivation for celibacy was the closer following of Jesus Christ, who required his apostles to leave wife and family, to become "eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom". But don't take my word for it. Ignatius Press has published a number of books which demolish the myths and provide compelling evidence for this unbroken tradition, the jewel of the Catholic priesthood:

By the way:

  1. If you want to follow these and other controversies, get the inside information, and the unvarnished truth, you'll want to subscribe to Catholic World Report.

    The Gay Priest Problem - Check out this special preview article from our upcoming May issue: Fr. Paul Shaughnessy's hard-hitting article on the Gay Priest Problem. Find out how problems in the Church have led to the current situation--and how we can prevent more abuse from happening.


Books on Celibacy and Related Issues Published by Ignatius Press:

Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy
Christian Cochini, S.J.

This is the definitive scholarly statement on the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Church East and West. What Cochini shows through patristic sources and conciliar documentation is that from the beginning of the Church, although married men could be priests, they were required to vow to celibacy before ordination, meaning they intended to live a life of continence. He provides extensive documentation, a bibliography and an index.

Priesthood and Diaconate

The Case for Clerical Celibacy

The Case for Clerical Celibacy
Cardinal Alfons Stickler

In order to arrive at a correct understanding of the much discussed topic of clerical celibacy, this book clarifies the pertinent facts and the discipline found within the Church from its beginnings until the present time, and explores the theological reasons for celibacy. Cardinal Stickler begins with a discussion of the relevant sources and current scholarship to support his conclusions.


NEW - Priesthood and Diaconate
Gerhard Ludwig Muller

With the apostolic letter of Pope John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has presented the tradition of conferring Holy Orders on men only as an expression of divine revelation and hence as a doctrine that binds in faith. This makes clear that the Church's practice in this regard cannot be interpreted as a concession to the customs of an age, for instance to a discrimination against women on sociological grounds. The Church's teaching is founded, rather, upon a theology of the sexes, which is based on the relationship of man and woman originating in creation itself. This relationship is sanctified to the utmost in the Sacrament of Matrimony, as the concrete symbol of God's love for mankind.

Priesthood and Diaconate

Celibacy in the Early Church
Celibacy in the Early Church
Stefan Heid

Heid presents a penetrating and wide-ranging study of the historical data from the early Church on the topics of celibacy and clerical continence. He gives a brief review of recent literature, and then begins his study with the New Testament and follows it all the way to Justinian and the Council in Trullo in 690 it the East and the fifth century popes in the West. He thoroughly examines the writings of the Bible, the early church councils, saints and theologians like Jerome, Augustine, Clement, Tertullian, John Chrystostom, Cyril and Gregory Nazianzen. He has gathered formidable data with conclusive arguments regarding obligatory continence in the early Church.

Women in the Priesthood?
Dr. Manfred Hauke

This book should become the standard reference in the debate about women's ordination. The author cites copiously from American as well as European sources and presents the feminist position in the words and categories of the leading feminist authors. But, for the first time, the whole question is placed in the comprehensive context of anthropology, biology, psychology, philosophy, and theology. You will find a balanced presentation of the profound consistency of the Catholic Church's teaching and the practice concerning the role of women in the Church and in society. Written in a scholarly, yet very readable manner.

Women in the Priesthood?

Deaconesses
Deaconesses
Aime Georges Martimort

Since the 17th century the history of deaconesses in the Church has been the subject of numerous monographs. What is most evident about the history of deaconesses, however, is how complex the whole subject is. In this exhaustive and thoroughly researched work, Martimort presents a very readable analysis that has become the standard study of the role of women deaconesses in the early Church. He presents in as complete and objective fashion as possible the history, who and what these deaconesses were and what their functions were.

Truth About Homosexuality
Fr. John Harvey

This book addresses the complex moral and pastoral questions involved in both homosexual orientation and activity, including an analysis of lifestyles in accord with the Christian Gospel, and those running counter to the Christian perception. Fr. Harvey, a pioneer in the pastoral care of homosexual persons through his organization Courage, gives a comprehensive view of the issues involved in homosexuality.

Truth About Homosexuality

 

 



TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last
With the major assault upon the Roman Catholic Church by AmChurch (and their cohort in the liberal media) on the way getting ready to try to overwhelm the USCCB meeting in Dallas in June -- it is important for faithful Catholics to be informed ... and well-informed.
1 posted on 04/28/2002 12:35:48 AM PDT by history_matters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Catholic_list; ken5050; Slyfox; rose; ClearBlueSky; Aunt Polgara; Codie; ELS; katnip;viadexter...
Catholic bump

Freepmail me if you want on or off my ping list. God bless.

2 posted on 04/28/2002 12:37:01 AM PDT by history_matters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diago; patent; Askel5; Dr. Brian Kopp
From the Rev. Paul Shaughnessy's essay linked above:
Use your checkbook as a carrot and stick. Remember that when your pastoral associate flies to Rio during Mardi Gras, you're footing the bill. Don't be silent partners in corruption. When a scandal involving a priest hits the papers, first, cut out the pertinent news article; second, write a check for $100 to the Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa's nuns); third, when you receive a request for donations from the outfit in which the scandal occurred, enclose the article in the return envelope along with a photocopy of your check to the MCs and a note to this effect: "My previous contributions were intended for the support of my pastors and the propagation of the faith. From now on you can pay for your own K-Y jelly and your own AZT. I will resume my donations when you have cleaned the stables." They'll get the message. Just as important, when a bishop or religious superior shows some spine by a gutsy dismissal or intervention, send him a note telling him what you think, and include a check as well.

3 posted on 04/28/2002 12:48:28 AM PDT by history_matters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding; father_elijah; ELS; Aquinasfan; Lady In Blue
A bump for Father Fessio!
4 posted on 04/28/2002 12:53:28 AM PDT by history_matters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
What THE BIBLE says about Homosexuality (click here)

THE LIVE WIRE: "SEX SCANDAL IN ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH DUE TO IGNORING SCRIPTURES" -Commentary by Gregory J. Rummo

5 posted on 04/28/2002 1:11:29 AM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
All clergy people in every religion are tainted by this. All the files in question need to be turned over to the authorities so that the abusers can be investigated, and the good and decent people vindicated.
6 posted on 04/28/2002 3:35:43 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy; rbmillerjr; brat; Robert Drobot; Dumb_Ox
Sunday morning -- p i n g
7 posted on 04/28/2002 4:16:57 AM PDT by history_matters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
Important post. Thank you!
8 posted on 04/28/2002 4:25:52 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
My pleasure. God bless!


9 posted on 04/28/2002 4:27:27 AM PDT by history_matters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
Amen.....good advice.
10 posted on 04/28/2002 5:34:07 AM PDT by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
Well if all clergy married and unmarried in all denominations are beset by this problem it must say something about the emotional /psychological makeup of men who think they have the calling to spread the word or minister to the laity
11 posted on 04/28/2002 5:43:41 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
I just heard Cardinal George on MTP. First off he blinks like a liar. How can his words possibly represent the Church?
12 posted on 04/28/2002 7:20:15 AM PDT by Angelique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
Anyone watching Fr. Richard McBrien on Meet the Press??

He is listed in "The Homosexual Network" as a supporter of the homosexual movement and ideology.

13 posted on 04/28/2002 7:31:11 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
God bless Father Fessio. May he soon be elevated to the rank of Bishop to take over one of the troubled diocese run into the ground by malfeasance. I have a suspicion that a lot of cathedras will be vacant soon...
14 posted on 04/28/2002 7:37:30 AM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
Thanks for the bump ... I appreciate the information!
15 posted on 04/28/2002 7:49:07 AM PDT by Gophack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angelique
Don't make too much of body language. You may have forgotten that our president used to come across on TV like this. He was nervous and unsure of his positions sometimes. Look at him now. By contrast, Bill Clinton was always about to look at us straight in the eye and never blink.
16 posted on 04/28/2002 8:00:03 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
Did you listen to Father Neuhaus? McBrien actually affirmed what Neuhaus condemned: the right of "gays"--those who makes homosexual lust the very center of their lives-- to enter the priesthood and openly practice what goes directly against Catholic teachings.
17 posted on 04/28/2002 8:11:34 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cindy
Mandatory celibacy came into being at the Second Lateran Council in 1139 when Pope Innocent the Second pronounced all clerical marriages invalid and the children of such marriages bastards. Mandatory celibacy was later affirmed by the council of Trent in the 16th century and subsequently by every pope since that time.

The article you referenced is full of errors and lies. The mischaracterization of what Paul wrote being just one. The author obviously knows little of Scripture or history. His failure to mention only one of the following shows that he is agenda driven and a liar:

Clement of Alexandria (~150-220 AD) "Stromata" Book VII, Chapter XI

Canons XXVII and XXXIII of the Council of Elvira 295-302 AD

Council of Nicea 325 AD

Pope Siricius "Dicreta" 385 AD

Pope Siricius "Cum in unum" 386 AD

Synod of Rome 386 AD

Second Council of Carthage 390 AD

Codex canonum Ecclesiae Africanae 419 AD

catechesis of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386 AD)

"Letter to Pammachius" St. Jerome (347-419 AD)

St. Jeromes' polemic with Vigilantius from Gaul 406 AD

"De conjugiis adulterinis" St. Augustine 419 AD

"Breviatio Ferrandi" ~550 AD

Third Council of Toledo 589 AD

councils held under St. Caesarius of Arles sixth century AD

Irish Penitentials sixth century AD

Poenitentiale Vinniani, no. 27, sixth century AD

Council of Metz 888 AD

Council of Mainz 888 AD

Council of Rheims 909 AD

Synod of Rome 1077 AD

First Lateran Council Canons III, XI 1123 AD

Second Lateran Council Canons VI, VII, XI 1139 AD

18 posted on 04/28/2002 8:18:17 AM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
After having read both of their writings over the last 20 years, I say, so what if he said one thing he agreed with Neuhaus on. You should read the other things McBrien has had to say. He is a disgrace to his collar. He is a supporter of New Ways Ministry and is sourced in their literature affirming their stand on homosexuality. If you noticed at the end of his diatribe on the show he started doing a commercial for priests being able to marry. He has written volumes mocking the Church while maintaining an air of credibility. He's a snake.
19 posted on 04/28/2002 8:41:16 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
Oh! Yes! the media is already spouting the agenda for celebicity to end and marriage to begin...but! but! I always assumed that our clergy were untouchable, devoting their lives to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ...When the first apostles were chosen, some were married and forsook all in order to follow Christ and participate in His spreading of the Word. What pray tell do our modern day clergy have in mind.....Exactly, there has been an infiltration of men whose main desire is to destroy the one and only holy Catholic church, no if's and's or but's....To the faithful clergy I say remain steadfast and pray that we may be rid of this abomination...Peace to all.
20 posted on 04/28/2002 9:09:02 AM PDT by ejo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
Thank you for the ping.
21 posted on 04/28/2002 10:29:27 AM PDT by katnip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
After having read both of their writings over the last 20 "years, I say, so what if he said one thing he agreed with Neuhaus on. You should read the other things McBrien has had to say. He is a disgrace to his collar. He is a supporter of New Ways Ministry and is sourced in their literature affirming their stand on homosexuality. If you noticed at the end of his diatribe on the show he started doing a commercial for priests being able to marry. He has written volumes mocking the Church while maintaining an air of credibility. He's a snake."

I can "one-up" you on McBrien. He wrote a blasphemous column that appeared in my then local Diocesan paper. In that column he said that Jesus was in error, ignorant and sexually tempted.

I wrote, protested etc against this column and demanded an apology be issued.No apology was ever issued.

Now,it can accurately be stated that those things can honestly be said about Martin Luther King but not about Jesus. It is just as accurate to say that NO Diocesan would ever dare to print such truth about Martin Luther King. Apparently, only blasphemous lies about Jesus are permissible.

Now, let me close by citing a Prelate who "one-uped," the blasphemous McBrien. The Bishop of Portland (the entire state of Maine) was quoted to me by his spokesman, Mark Mutty, "The Bishop agrees with McBrien.".

That Prelate's name is Bishop Joseph Gerry.

If folks don't think this rot, corruption and evil is both deep and wisespread, then they are kidding themselves. Many Dioceses are simply dead.....

22 posted on 04/28/2002 10:36:41 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
The motivation for celibacy was the closer following of Jesus Christ, who required his apostles to leave wife and family, to become "eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom".
This is perhaps the only objective statement I can find in the piece, and even this shows a bias. It is certainly true that many of the early Christians practiced celibacy in imitation of Jesus, but to say that Jesus “required” his apostles to leave wife and family is a bit of a stretch. Here are the verses in question about becoming “eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom”:
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." (Mt19:8-12 (NIV); emphasis added.)

Although the apostles who were married were not “required” to leave their wives and children, however, there is evidence that they actually did so:
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?" Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first. (Mt19:23-30 (NIV); emphasis added.)

Moreover, even if one were to understand Jesus’ remarks in Mt19:8-12 to mean that celibacy was a requirement for apostleship, it’s clear from Paul’s writings that the apostles did not require their successors to be unmarried. (Cf 1Tim3:2, 1Tim3:12 and Tit1:6)

Remaining single for the sake of the kingdom is a wonderful spiritual gift, and Jesus urged those who received the gift – apostles and disciples alike -- to exercise it. There is nothing to suggest, however, that Jesus “required” his apostles to leave their wives and family or that the apostles required celibacy of their successors.

23 posted on 04/28/2002 10:40:38 AM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
I have a feeling that, although the libs will try to spin this all their way, they will eventually fail in this effort.
24 posted on 04/28/2002 11:28:40 AM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
I pray fervently that you are right. May the liberals all be exposed, fall flat on their face, and run home to satan with their tails between their legs...
25 posted on 04/28/2002 12:09:13 PM PDT by history_matters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
Good post. I was under the impression these myths were true until Catholicguy told me about one of the books in a previous thread. Keep spreading the word!
26 posted on 04/28/2002 12:23:55 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity; history_matters
Perhaps I am misinterpreting your comments, but it does a disservice to the many orthodox Catholics who favor a further relaxation of the celibacy requirement for the diocesan priesthood to marginalize them as "liberals."
27 posted on 04/28/2002 12:26:22 PM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
I love that graphic. Where did you get it from?
28 posted on 04/28/2002 12:31:34 PM PDT by Aggie Mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Aggie Mama
I did a google.com Image search and stumbled across it. Isn't it perfect? Padre Pio to the rescue with just the right word for us in this troubled time.
29 posted on 04/28/2002 12:47:56 PM PDT by history_matters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: goldenstategirl
Good post. I was under the impression these myths were true until Catholicguy told me about one of the books in a previous thread.
While I admire Fr. Fessio's advocacy of obligatory priestly celibacy, IMO, he overplays his hand. Take the following, for example:
The truth is that the Church's obligation of celibacy goes back to the apostles in an *unbroken* line.
I have one of the books listed in Fr. Fessio's "message" with me right now -- Celibacy in the Early Church, by Stefan Heid (the original German edition was published in 1997) -- and everything in my post #23 above is based on that book. Here's an extended excerpt from Chapter 1:
The broad outline of the last fifty years of celibacy scholarship shows that something has occurred that not infrequently causes misunderstandings in historical research: a one-sided formulation of the question has produced one-sided answers. Scholars took the present discipline of celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church as their point of departure and searched for a pattern of clerics in the unmarried state in the first centuries. This, however, they did not find -- at any rate, not for all clerics. The question that they should have asked is whether the early Church perhaps knew a different discipline of continence. This was the approach of the older German scholarship in the nineteenth century. But that was though to have been refuted scientifically, and so these contributions were consigned to oblivion.

Actually, if this deficit has not become evident already, it ought to when on looks at the Church's legislation. That is to say, according to canon law an exclusively unmarried clergy, as we know it today, existed at all only after the Council of Trent (1521-1545). Even the above-mentioned Second Lateran Council, which is repeatedly cited as the beginning of the history of celibacy, did not intend to exclude married men from holy orders; it merely declared marriages contracted after the reception of orders to be invalide (canon 7). [Emphasis added.]

The word "exclusively" emphasized above is significant. Heid is not saying that the Church did not practice clerical celibacy prior to Trent, but that the exlusively celibate diocesan priesthood has only been around for about 450 years, or about one-quarter of the Church's history. (Indeed, as I'm sure you're aware, there are presently former Anglican priests who are now married Catholic priests in the Roman rite, as well as Eastern-rite married Catholic priests who are in communion with Rome). Accordingly, one should exercise restraint in trying to read the tridentine model of clerical celibacy back to the apostolic age.
30 posted on 04/28/2002 1:51:46 PM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
What THE BIBLE says about Homosexuality (click here)

FREE CONGRESS FOUNDATION: "A BAROMETER OF SPIRITUAL CONDITION" -Commentary by Brad Keena (042602)

31 posted on 04/28/2002 4:00:06 PM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
getting ready to try to overwhelm the USCCB meeting in Dallas in June -- it is important for faithful Catholics to be informed ... and well-informed.

Agree wholeheartedly.

32 posted on 04/28/2002 4:37:39 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cindy
Thank you for the information, Cindy. Missing from the Christian ministries linked at the "What THE BIBLE says about Homosexuality" link that you provided was one for Courage. The following is from their national homepage:
Courage, an apostolate of the Roman Catholic Church, ministers to those with same-sex attractions and their loved ones. We have been endorsed by the Pontifical Council for the Family.
Thank you for keeping your Catholic brothers and sisters in your prayers. God bless.
33 posted on 04/28/2002 4:50:35 PM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
Changing the discipline of celibacy for the Latin rite can happen if the Holy Father believes that is way to go. If Peter says so, then I'm there.

Until today I have not realized that there are conservative Catholics who feel the Church would be bettered served by the changing or ending of this discipline. It is a lot for me to digest, and I feel very confused about the state of the Church now.

Having lost confidence in the Princes of the Church, I am ready for a greater role for laity in the governance ... but I honestly don't know the what or how of that -- I just know the foxes guarding the hen house have to go.

I also know that pro-abort Catholics and their ilk need to be excommunicated and their influence in the Church brought to a swift end. When I think of the calls to end celibacy that I have read or heard, they have usually come from those who deny and reject doctrine that I believe cannot be abridged or glossed over.

You have given me food for thought and for prayer.

34 posted on 04/28/2002 5:28:36 PM PDT by history_matters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
Thanks for the post. This certainly seems to be a complex issue.
35 posted on 04/28/2002 5:47:14 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
Accordingly, one should exercise restraint in trying to read the tridentine model of clerical celibacy back to the apostolic age.

Thanks for your post.

Although he's viewed as a troll around here, Richard McBrien made the point this morning that mandatory celibacy IS related to the present crisis, if only because it draws certain kinds of personalities to the priesthood.

If a requirement for serving in Congress was mandatory celibacy for males, we would have an entirely different makeup in that body than we do today. And there would be more gays in Congress as well.

Those, like me, who argue for admitting married men to the priesthood recognize that the pool of candidates would be much larger, and seminary authorities could be much more selective in who they admit.

I find it rather odd that the American Catholic Church has a priesthood overrun with sexually active gays, when it could have had a priesthood overrun with sexually active married men if optional celibacy had been considered at Vatican II.

36 posted on 04/28/2002 5:50:23 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I find it rather odd that the American Catholic Church has a priesthood overrun with sexually active gays, when it could have had a priesthood overrun with sexually active married men if optional celibacy had been considered at Vatican II.
Thanks for your post, sinkspur. JPII was on the commission at Vatican II that wrote the Dogument Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, and he has recently reiterated his personal opposition to a further relaxation of mandatory celibacy. IOW, I don't look for a further relaxation of mandatory celibacy to happen in this pontificate, if ever.

I concur with those who say that a married Catholic diocesan priesthood is not a panacea for the present problem, but then again, I haven't heard such a naive claim from any source I would informed and orthodox. IMO, there is room for both married and celibate diocesan priests in the Church.

More important, although I concur with those who deny a causal relationship between the infiltration of active homosexuals and pedophiles among the clergy and an exclusively celibate priesthood, I concur with you that the latter provided the proper conditions for that infiltration to flourish, and that a further relaxation of mandatory celibacy should at least be considered as part of any effort to rid our clergy of these deviants.

37 posted on 04/28/2002 6:18:49 PM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Erratum in my #37: Dogument = Dogmatic. : )
38 posted on 04/28/2002 6:21:19 PM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

To: Be_Ye_Glad
Sir, do you think that would keep the homosexuals out of the priesthood? It seems like it would make it more like the Navy. An easy place for a homosexual to fit in.

Gays are being kicked out of the services in record numbers, or haven't you heard?

No one is saying that gays would never find their way into the priesthood if priests were allowed to be married. Fewer would, however, if there weren't a gay network screening candidates.

40 posted on 04/28/2002 6:35:05 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
I have not consciously used "libs" or "liberals" with regard to celibacy questions exclusively. Whether linkage with the pedophile/sex abuse scandals is a prudent course for theological and canonical debates on celibacy is, I think, debatable. Everyone with a position on this will argue for their own point of view. Being neither celibate nor a priest, perhaps I'm not the best expert to debate either way. I've known excellent celibate priests who I think are/were neither homosexual, nor abusive.
41 posted on 04/28/2002 6:35:51 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
the problem here is that there are sodomite priests. these are all cases of sodomy against young boys, and the way to deal with this is to make sure that no sodomites are allowed into the priesthood. right now, the priesthood is seen as a great option by many sodomites because they are not allowed to be married, so people dont look at it as strange that they are not married. allowing priests to marry would alleviate this problem. paul said that he wishes everybody could be called to celibacy, however not everybody is, and not all priests are called to celibacy. therefore, Rome should not force this on people, considering that God did say that it is good to marry, and that bishops should be married.
42 posted on 04/28/2002 6:49:56 PM PDT by pro-life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
I have not consciously used "libs" or "liberals" with regard to celibacy questions exclusively.
Many thanks for the reply. Attempts to consider relaxing mandatory celibacy is usually met with strong opposition on this forum (FR attracts one tough crowd!), especially during the present crisis when all our nerves are frayed. So, my apologies for misunderstanding your previous post -- let's just say I'm a little sensitive about the word "liberal." : )

God bless.

43 posted on 04/28/2002 6:52:22 PM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; history_matters
The real question isn't celibacy or marriage. The real question is holiness. The active homosexuals have to be there by intentional infiltration. This sort of thing doesn't just happen.

As an ex-Episcopalian I don't look at married clergy or anything as a cure-all for what ails the Church. But I do think the largest part of the answer lies in the universal call to holiness, a call which is as much for the celibate monk or nun as it is for the married couple.

44 posted on 04/28/2002 6:54:29 PM PDT by OxfordMovement
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: OxfordMovement
The real question is holiness.

Well, duh.

Let's just ask everybody to "be good" and see what happens.

Nobody's looking for a "cure all"; just an alternative to what seems to be an overwhelming sexually active gay presence in the priesthood.

45 posted on 04/28/2002 7:03:02 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OxfordMovement
The real question is holiness.

Well, duh.

Let's just ask everybody to "be good" and see what happens.

Nobody's looking for a "cure all"; just an alternative to what seems to be an overwhelming sexually active gay presence in the priesthood.

46 posted on 04/28/2002 7:04:49 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Let's just ask everybody to "be good" and see what happens.

If that is what you think the universal call to holiness is, I am saddened for you.

47 posted on 04/28/2002 7:06:48 PM PDT by OxfordMovement
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: pro-life
Thank you for your non-Catholic advice. Married men may be ordained to the priesthood in the 20 plus Eastern rites of the Catholic Church.
48 posted on 04/28/2002 7:10:00 PM PDT by history_matters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: OxfordMovement
The active homosexuals have to be there by intentional infiltration. This sort of thing doesn't just happen.

There are all sorts of anti-apostles who have made there way into the Church to destroy it. But they will not prevail. Christ wins.

49 posted on 04/28/2002 7:11:13 PM PDT by history_matters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: history_matters
Married men may be ordained to the priesthood in the 20 plus Eastern rites of the Catholic Church.
I'm not so sure that the Eastern-rite Catholics are permitted to exercise this part of their rite in this jurisdiction (i.e., the land of the free).
50 posted on 04/28/2002 7:16:59 PM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 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