Posted on 05/10/2016 6:09:28 AM PDT by marshmallow
Jozef De Kesel, Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels and primate of Belgium, has spoken in favor of allowing the ordination of married men. In a wide-ranging interview with De Zondag, a Flemish publication, the 68-year old Archbishop was asked whether the Latin Rite should maintain priestly celibacy. He said in reply:
“I am not in favor of the abolition of celibacy. A single life is not meaningless. I have consciously chosen it: it was also the way of life of Jesus. However, I do not think we can require that of all priests, especially at a time when sexuality plays a big role. I am a supporter of the model of the Eastern Catholic Church. There, married men can enter the priesthood.”
His remarks were also reported in Le Soir, a francophone Belgian publication.
(Excerpt) Read more at praytellblog.com ...
What is the big deal with married priests?
Oh, for the good ol days. I’m thinking of that first line spoken in “A Man for All Seasons”
“there’s the country every second bastard born is fathered by a priest.”
Ultimately this one is in the Holy Spirit’s hands
Depends what marriage means?
Disciplines can change at any time. Doctrine (such as an all-male clergy) cannot.
The current pope seems to be very progressive. He can change the rule in a minute, if he chooses to. The guy who is all happy about homosexual “unions”, and about letting muzzies stream into Europe can allow married priests any time he wants.
My opinion — he is off his rocker and doesn’t want to dedicate his life to God.
As a Catholic, I think the celibacy allows a more committed clergy. As the Archbishop points out, Eastern Catholic rites ordain married men (though I don’t believe they can marry if they are ordained as single men or re-marry if their wives die); I just don’t believe the focus is there is the priest is married. The murderous regimes of Hitler and Stalin showed how clergy’s families could be used to exert force/pressure on them; the Russian Orthodox Church for the most part became a state religion in response.
I couldn’t imagine the priests who brought Catholicism to the New World doing so if they were leaving families behind (or exposing those families to danger by bringing them along); the North American martyrs, unlike many of the Apostles, didn’t leave families for others to provide for. The fact that some Apostles were married is used to argue for a married clergy; the fact that there is no mention of who provides for their families after their martyrdoms can be used just as strongly against it.
BTW, Jesus didn’t invite the spouses and/or families of the married Apostles along for the adventure...
There are very good spiritual and even practical arguments to be made in favor of a celibate clergy -- and these arguments need to be carefully considered --- but there is no bonding, intrinsic theological reason not to ordain qualified married men.
Talk like this paradoxically encourages Priests to take mistresses.
The Apostles were married.
The archbishop is ignorant of the many trials and tribulations of the Protestantr clergy. The wife of a pastor has a rough time.
Peter WAS... Who else?
The Apostles were married!
Additionally, the hundreds of Anglican Ministers returning to the Roman Catholicism, are married w/families.
A married Priesthood would be an undisguised blessing for two major reasons:
* it would replace the homosexuals rampant among the Clergy and most importantly;
* it would affirm the criticality of the Family Unit as the bedrock of culture/society.
The only one of true Twelve we know was married was Peter. The New Testament is totally unconcerned about the question. It makes allusions to people about whom we know nothing more than their names.
As for ending the problem of the homosexuals among the clergy, that is doubtful, if only because sexual problems do not end with marriage.
Ok, fair comment.
But the criticality of affirming the importance of the Family Unit, overrides all other considerations.
“A married Priesthood would be an undisguised blessing for two major reasons:
* it would replace the homosexuals rampant among the Clergy and most importantly;
* it would affirm the criticality of the Family Unit as the bedrock of culture/society.”
It seems to me every single faith group that actually has accepted things like ‘gay marriage’, female clergy, and openly gay clergy in positions of leadership has allowed a married leadership first. I mean, how come married clergy/leaders didn’t stop the Episcopalians or the lib wings of the Lutherans and Presbyterians from accepting stuff like that?
Freegards
I got no problem with that, if true (which it may or may not be.) We know about Peter being very probably a widower. But for the rest? You have evidence? Chapter and verse?
Why would it do that for the Catholics? It didn't for the Anglicans.
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.