Posted on 10/11/2018 5:57:51 PM PDT by marshmallow
A Belgian bishop called Wednesday for married men to be allowed into the priesthood, a hot-button topic within the Roman Catholic church as it grapples with falling priest numbers and sexual abuse scandals.
"I am convinced that some young people, who have drawn from the baptismal vocation their call to wed, would gladly say 'here I am' if the church were to call them to the priestly ministry," Bishop Jean Kockerols told a global meeting of bishops being held at the Vatican.
He said the ordination of married men would help attract more priests to the calling.
Kockerols, Auxiliary Bishop of Brussels, was speaking on behalf of all Belgian bishops, a spokesman of the Belgian episcopal conference told the religious website "CathoBel".
The debate as to whether celibacy fosters sexual dysfunction and abusive behaviour in prelates has intensified in recent years.
Pope Francis has signalled that he is open to considering changing the doctrine to allow the ordination of married men.
But Belgian episcopal spokesman Tommy Scholtes warned that, in terms of the vocation crisis, it was "not the only solution".
"We know that in the Protestant or Orthodox world too, where pastors can marry, it is difficult to find young men to serve the church," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ph.news.yahoo.com ...
I’m with you on getting rid of the predators, but, can’t they do two things at once? Couldn’t this aide in taking out all that trash and filth?
Maybe he should go to that Belgian hospital for the mentally ill run by the church and tell the guys who run it to stop killing their patients and I'll take him seriously.
and by the way: I have no problem with mature married men being allowed to become priests. But of course, their agenda goes beyond that, but never mind.
Everything the hierarchy is doing is designed to divert attention away from the sodomite network. EVERYTHING.
This is no exception.
I won’t disagree that there is a cancer, and has been for some time, in the Church. It is disgusting and anyone/everyone involved should be dealt with. No exceptions.
However, if this policy were implemented and brought about positive changes, then it should be supported.
I don’t have a problem. The Apostle Peter was married.
the “problem” is not that the clergy aren’t married; that’s a diversion move.
It is primarily a spiritual problem and issue
Sorry, not buying it.
Sodomite cliques and healthy, married heterosexuals are like oil and water. The former will want to keep the latter as far away as possible. Don’t want them crashing the party. People who procreate themselves are far too likely to blow the whistle on the abuse of children.
Where did Jesus teach that?
Yup, that’s exactly right.
Anyone can see for themselves in a simple way: Just try to find one pro-abortion, homo sex, ‘gay marriage’ priestess accepting Catholic but who also thinks the discipline of celibacy is valuable and should continue. Every single lib nutbar I have ever come across hates the Catholic discipline of celibacy and wants it to end.
Freegards
The Eastern Rites Catholics do allow for men who are married, one man and one woman, to become priests. The man has to be married first. If I am not mistaken, PF did lift the ban a few years back on Eastern Rite priests being married when the respective rites outside of the home countries.
JN: Thus both Jesus and Paul teach Where did Jesus teach that?
His disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” [Jesus] answered, “Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” (Matt. 19:10-12)
Let us be clear (lest someone should misconstrue your comment) that a "chaste marriage" is one in which Mr. and Mrs. Smith have relations with each other, only, and nobody else.
Ah, yes: Little Dick McBrien, Big Media's go-to heretic for all things anti-Catholic.
I believe Petrosius is pointing toward Our Lord's mention of "some [who] have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven".
It's a moot point for faithful Catholics anyway; the Council of Trent taught solemnly that celibacy is a higher state than marriage. It's dogma.
I’m no church scholar, but I remember someone telling me that the decision to have priests, not be married, arose from the Plague or some other disease that was responsible for taking out mass numbers. The Church didn’t want the priests infecting their families. I could be wrong, but, as I stated, it was just something I heard a while back. Maybe someone can shed some light on it.
I imagine he's referring to Matthew 19.10-12. I don't agree it means how he's interpreting it.
Yeah, I’m going over it again, in Greek and English.
I’ve always taken it to mean that celibacy is a rare gift, which, if it is given to one, should be accepted.
It does not (necessarily) correlate with the labor supply situation with regard to pastors of Roman Catholic parishes. We ALREADY know that a number of pastors are persons whom, shall we say, are not sacrificing anything by forgoing marriage to a woman.
I do not think it is correct, even in the original text, that the gift of celibacy makes a man better than, or superior to, a man without it.
But I see Petrosius’ point and I will consider it.
Doubly so between sodomite cliques and healthy, celibate priests. When a homosexual looks at a married couple he says: "Why can I not do what you do? Will you not have compassion on the way I am?" But when he looks at a healthy, celibate priest he sees a complete rebuke of his lustful desires, a declaration that chaste living is achievable. Thus his desire to eliminate priestly celibacy.
Just take a look at which voices in the Church are the loudest in questioning priestly celibacy. They are the same ones calling for allowing Communion to the divorced and remarried, reviewing Humanae vitae, and "accompanying" the LGTB community. What unites these issues is a desire to eliminate all restraints on sexual activity.
Too many responsibilities? It wasn’t for Peter...and it wasn’t for many pastors and priests for a VERY LONG TIME. 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 says that it isn’t too much of a burden or the Holy Spirit would not have penned those words, and the Lord would not have called Peter. That’s nonsense and it doesn’t pass the test of history or practice.
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.