Posted on 03/12/2015 12:31:53 PM PDT by Legatus
A childhood friend of Pope Francis has claimed that he intends to overturn the centuries-old ban on Catholic priests from getting married and that he told a divorcee 'living in sin' that she could receive Holy Communion.
The Pope considers the law on priestly celibacy 'archaic' and 'not part of the doctrine of the Church', according to the confidante.
The friend also claimed the Argentinian-born pope also vowed to reform another Catholic rule which bars divorced people in new relationships from taking the Holy Communion, MailOnline can reveal.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy
Uses Vatican City as the definition of absolute monarchy.
But hey, believe what you wish.
Natural and Revealed Moral Law trump wikipedia.
But hey, believe what you wish.
That doesn’t apply to Catholics...They made up their own bible...
Source: A Complete History of the Catholic Church to Present Day by Rev. John Laux.
Rev. Laux btw was a Catholic priest.
Still selectively quoting, I see. Let us take a look at the entire passage:
And now let us glance at the results of this enslavement [of the Church to feudalism]. From the moment the selection of candidates for the highest ecclesiastical offices depended solely on the will of kings, men were appointed bishops and abbots for other reasons besides their priestly virtue or learning. If they could give guarantees to the sovereign of their fidelity to his dynasty and to his politics, that was considered more important than if they could interpret Scripture, preach a sermon, or write a learned treatise. Usually, in order to be successful, the aspirant to office had to be endorse by some powerful courtier. But the courtiers did not give their patronage free of charge; they sold it to the highest bidder. "Most of the bishops, therefore, bought their office, and in their turn sold the dignities of secondary order; and the lower clergy, to reimburse themselves, sold the sacraments and the sacramentals." And thus the pest of simony which had been all but stamped out in the Church, began its ravages anew. The consequences of this traffic in sacred things can be readily imagined. A simonaical clergy is bound to be an ignorant and immoral clergy. It is said on good authority that, in the tenth and eleventh centuries, half of the priests, and in some countries more than half, disregarded the law of celibacy and lived openly as fathers of families. And when the clergy fell from their high level, when many bishops were totally indifferent and paid no attention to their spiritual duties, is there any wonder that demoralization set in rapidly among the people? Qualis rex, talks grex--as the ruler, so the people. (pp. 264 - 265)I bring particular attention to the words that you conveniently left out from the quotation with your ellipsis: "disregarded the law of celibacy." Fr. Laux was stating that this disregard for clerical celibacy was contrary to the law and a result of the corruption of society because of the fall of the Charlemagne empire.
Since you did quote from Fr. Laux's history I take it that you consider it a reliable source. I would therefore bring to your attention what he wrote earlier in that work:
In the West clerical celibacy was no longer merely a general custom as in the earlier centuries; before the end of the fourth century it had become a rigorous obligation, as we know from the letters of several Popes and from the decrees of Italian, Gallic, African, and Spanish synods. Celibacy was binding on ll bishops, priests and deacons. (p. 161)History just does not support the claim that clerical celibacy was an invention of the Middle Ages.
“The Council of Trent considered the matter at its twenty-fourth session decreed that marriage AFTER (emphasis added) ordination was invalid.” So evidently married priests were permitted if they were married before ordination.
This is still the case. Married men are allowed to be ordained in the Eastern churches. In the West they can be ordained but must observe marital continence. This has been the constant practice in the West.
And the words of God in a bible...
The apostles did not administer a Eucharist but those who did minister communion were married with families...That was a requirement...Perhaps you should get your information from a bible...
It would wrong to conclude that compulsory clerical celibacy causes homosexual or pedophile behavior, I agree.
It would not be wrong to conclude that the Church’s policy of compulsory clerical celibacy helped create an atmosphere and environment very attractive to homosexuals/pedophiles.
This was especially true back in the day when homosexual behavior was considered taboo and frowned upon-—not glorified and exalted in the popular media culture like it is today. For people who did not want to get married or date people of the opposite sex, no questions were asked if you joined the priesthood. And the way the bishops covered up the priests and shuffled the around, it provided a secure sanctuary for many deprived priests. BTW-—we cannot gloss over the magnitude of the homosexual-pedophile priest scandal. My own archdiocese was hit with a $660 million judgment which will impact us for decades to come.
Another factor contributing to the homosexual-pedophile priest scandal was the (now discarded) practice of recruiting young teenagers for preparation to the seminary. Individuals who were not sexually or emotionally mature enough to make such a decision or commitment to lifelong celibacy.
This has changed drastically in recent years though. Prospective candidates for the priesthood these days are carefully screened and must under go a thorough battery of physical and psychological examination prior to be accepted into the priesthood. According to our pastor, the average of an individual entering into the seminary today is about 35, many considerably older.
I guess we can go on and on and around this for hours.
No less than the current Pope is on record as stating the following with respect to clerical celibacy:
1) The policy was institutionalized and implemented many centuries after the founding of the Church.
2) The policy is considered a discipline not a dogma or a doctrine.
3) The policy is always suggest to change.
I am not a great fan of Pope Francis (I think he’s a socialist) but he is absolutely correct on all of these points.
Since compulsory clerical celibacy is not a Biblical requirement, why is it necessary? WHY?????????
That doesn’t apply to Catholics...They made up their own bible...
Why is it necessary for a priest to celibate in order to celebrate the Eucharist? WHERE is it written? Why should a married man be prohibited from bring an ordained priest or celebrating Mass?
There is no disagreement with points 2 and 3. A for point 1, the historical record shows that in the West clerical celibacy goes back the the earliest years of the Church and was instituted for spiritual reasons. If you want to argue that what is only a discipline should be changed, fine. It is a false argument, however, to state that is was an invention of the Middle Ages instituted for financial reasons. Why keep resorting to it if it is not true?
In order to comprehend the answer one must have an accurate understanding of what Jesus was doing hanging on the cross, and an accurate understanding of what the Eucharist is, and an accurate understanding of what the priesthood is.
On the cross, Jesus was taking the Church as his bride, making himself her bridegroom. The Eucharist re-presents, or makes present sacramentally, this same action. The entire person of the priest, who speaks the words of Christ in celebrating the Eucharist, participates in making the nuptial mystery present.
The perfect, perpetual continence of the priest safeguards, emphasizes, and reinforces the reality of the presence of Christ the bridegroom in the Eucharist. It is a witness to the Church by the priest, and a more-than-symbolic sacrifice that enables the priest to cooperate in the process of making the nuptial love of Christ present in the world in every age.
In the Latin Church, ANY cleric, INCLUDING married deacons, who has sexual relations violates canon law.
There is no report that the Pope has made any of those assertions. And they are all false.
I did not say celibacy was invented in the Middle Ages.
I did say the Church’s policy of compulsory clerical celibacy was not widely enforced, implemented, and institutionalized until the Middle Ages as many if not most priest, bishops (and yes a number of the early popes) were married men. As were priests in the Bible. What is the spiritual or biblical reason prohibiting a priest or bishop from being married? St. Paul states:
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach.”
1 Timothy 3:2
Since priests were married men in the Bible from Aaron on down. Since the Lord commands us to be fruitful and multiply. Since God create Eve because He did not want Adam to be alone. It seems to me Holy Matrimony is God’s plan. Why should that be deprived to a priest?
Wrong. According NBC News May 27, 2014:
“Pope Francis has opened the door for a debate on priestly celibacy.”
“Fresh off the back of his historic trip to the Middle East, the pontiff delved into one of the core Catholic Church rules by declaring it is not a dogma that clergy members abstain from sex.”
“Francis told reporters aboard a plane to the Vatican,
“But since it is not a dogma, the door is always open.”
“This is not the first time Pope Francis has spoken celibacy—he made similar statements while Archbishop of Buenos Aires and after his elevation to pope, his secretary of state noted that is not an institution.”
“That’s because celibacy among Catholic clergy has been around for 1,000 years, it is considered a man-made rule which can be altered-—rather than dogma, or unchangeable.”
The continence of a priest safeguards nothing. The crucifixtion of Jesus does not demand or require a policy of clerical celibacy. St. Paul says a bishop should be the husband of one wife. I agree with that.
I can’t tell whether the last statement is being attributed to the Pope.
I didn’t think the Pope could say such stupid, uninformed things. I was wrong.
Every day, he demonstrates his ignorance of theology and history. He is totally unqualified to be Pope—intellectually, emotionally, morally.
Well I think we may have found an area of agreement.
I generally do not agree with him on most issues and I am not looking forward to his upcoming encyclical on global warming.
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.