What do you have to say for yourself ?
I'm a bit confused as to your purpose of these 'neutrally framed' polls on a 'orthodox' website -- I mean, it's not to say Rome has firmly and authoritatively spoken on the use of contraception and women priests. Phrasing the question as "SHOULD ..." seems to ask: "how many of my readers dissent with Rome"?
I'd just think polls of this nature -- a survey of general opinion -- are more common to secular newspapers/websites which treat these topics from a relative, "anything goes" perspective.
I believe I've provided the necessary information (married: possible, female: unable). Do you want me to ask leading questions ?
In case you're curious, I am in favor of married priests, but not of female priests.
I find polls interesting. If you don't, don't put them on your blog.
Should women be allowed to be priests? Well, if I were the only source for the Church, I would say yes. If the majority ran the Church, I believe the answer would be yes. Scripture says no, Tradition says no, and Holy See says no. There is a major role for women in the Church. It has been a very powerful one from Mary the mother of Jesus on. I just can't see any way, shape or form for a woman to become a priest any more than I, a man, could become a mother. The Church in a lot of ways is less dogmatic than some would have it. However, sometimes the Church says no. We can respect that and move on or become Protestant. But women priests and ministers in the Protestant church has not been all that successful.
One of the rarely discussed but entirely possible outcomes of allowing a married Catholic priesthood is the decimation of the religious orders.
My guess is that a married priesthood would cripple the orders for decades.
Fr. Philip, OP
The poll is interesting, but I'd like to see one on the behaviors of bishops who seem to have little regard for the good and faithful priests.
I don't think allowing married Priests is the solution people think it is. If that were the case, why don't we have swollen ranks of the Deaqconate?
Deacons may marry. They may witness marriages, baptisms, distribute the Holy Communions, visit the sick. They may not Consecrate the Eucharist, anoint the sick or give absolution.
If one could give total service to the Church, like a Priest, and be married, then why don't we have more Deacons?
I'm not necessarily in favor of married priests, but I'm not against the idea in general. Maybe it should be a choice but that's not for me to decide.
As for women being priests, it's something that cannot happen. The Catholic faith teaches that it is impossible for women to be priests. So to be in favor of allowing women to be priests is to be in favor of excommunication!
I am an admirer of the current practice of celibacy in the Priesthood, however, the dual practice of marriage for clergy serving parishes and celibacy for clergy who will serve as Bishops has worked well for the Eastern rites and I can see the good in that version as well.
In a way, we DO have a form of married clergy in our Deacons.
What we have works fine.
I love the clarity of the encyclical reserving the priesthood to men. Clarity of teaching makes it easily embraced. Even if doubted, there is still accepting it on Faith and in the spirit of a healthy obedience.
Gerald:
I didn't vote as I am becoming more and more convinced that Roman Catholic priests should remain celibate. My idea of a poll is whether Anglican priests who are married and convert should be allowed into the Roman Catholic priesthood. I have tried researching JP II's decision on this and haven't been able to find too much; this change could potentially have a negative effect on those priests who must follow the celibacy requirement.
I pity those ten people who voted yes on the woman priests question.
Gerald,
Can you eventually put together a "polls" post in which you gather the results of all the polls you have run on the blog into a single post?
I think this would be interesting...
It may work for the Eastern Churches, but I believe they are more disciplined than American Catholic church and certainly don't seem to have been swept up in the "Spirit of Vatican II" and the sexual revolution as America has.
Married priests and women priests issue has become almost a Church civil rights issue or a sexual revolution issue. Not at all a reasonable approach, but with the same tone and "everyone should be allowed to find love" arguments as used in supporting gay marriage.
It's never based in theology, tradition, scripture, but always in "bringing the church into the 21st century."
There is some scholarship, such as Cochini's Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, that suggests that while married men were indeed ordained in the early Church, both East and West, that they were obliged to live a life of continence after ordination. I believe this would have applied even to deacons. Thus it seems that the current practice of the East, in which priests many continue to have marital relations with their wives after ordination, is actually a deviation from the tradition. However, it is notable that the East only chooses bishops from among the celibate clergy.
Celibacy means not getting married, while continence is abstaining from sex. It seems that the tradition in both East and West from early times was that clerics were not necessarily celibate but were ALWAYS continent, regardless of rank (deacon, priest, bishop).
It is not for us to vote on married priests. I know many have little concept of the value of total consecration or of virginity and chastity and celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom--in this age that is no surprise.
Gerald, I am not surprised you are in favor of married priests, after all two men holding hands was okay with you too.
The cafeteria does appear to be open.
A man who is married, and has a family must put them after God but before everything else. It is the covenant he makes and must keep.
A priest who is married to the Church and the Church alone can alone put the Church first always. A priest who is father to the faithful and the faithful alone can alone put the faithful first always.
While not the only possible answer, the celibate priesthood of the Roman Church is the a beautiful ideal. It should not be sacrificed in order to better suit the times. Times change. God will provide if we remain orthodox, and faithful to His Church.
Married priests. What a wonderful idea. So not only would we have the scandal of sex abuse, but adultery, divorce and remarriage on top of it.
Oh, don't forget a thundering return of nepotism, too.
Here's another idea: Total self-sacrifice and fidelity. What did Christ say to the young man who kept the Commandments?
"I am in favor of married priests"
Before you make that choice consider the following from someone who is a priest.
First, I invite you to look at the divorce rates among protestant and orthodox clergy. There is a reason for it. Being a priest is not a career choice no more than being married should be a career move or choice. It is a vocation from God to service in the Body of Christ. Being a priest in highly demanding and if done right, something that requires the priest to pour himself out for the good of the parish (es) he serves. It is the same kind of fidelity and self-giving required of a man and woman in marriage. No more than a married person can have divided loyalties and still have a healthy marriage can a priest have his loyalties divided between a parish and a wife & children...one will suffer. I know several married priests and their wives (converts from prot religions) who have told me this. Everyone of the wives has at some time told me they feel like a single mother. They understand why their husbands put their parish first as they got used to it while protestant. But as much as they love their husbands, they do miss the kind of marriage that others have.
I, for my part, could not ask a woman I love and children I helped bring into the world to play second fiddle to my parish anymore than I would've asked to them play second fiddle to my job/career had I not been ordained. Nor could I ask my parishioners to play second fiddle to my wife and family. My parishioners aren't clients or customers...they are the part of the flock entrusted to me. The same qualities of devotion, protection, and nurturing are due them.
Some believe that were we to ordain married men and women that all our vocation problems would dissipate. that is not true. The Protestants, Orthodox, and Jews (or so their clerics are telling me) are in the same boat we are. Were the ordination of married men and women the grail some believe it is, we should be able to see precedance in other religious groups.
I can assure you the burnout rates for priests would be higher. What do we do with divorced priests, then? Are we willing to pay priests enough to raise a family? What about the example of celibacy? Is anyone crazy enough to think these things would've prevented the scandals? Or even lessened them?
I can assure you, if we were to start ordaining such persons tommorrow, we would see a slight influx, but it would peter out quickly. We would find new excuses why not to serve (we could borrow the ones already present in prot circles!) WE are looking for that magic elixir to make our problems go away...an elixir that does require for me or society to change.
Because the real problem is society, a society in which we have inculturated far too much into our religious views. We are affluent. Most of us have the means, freedom, education, and talents to do what we want in life. The culture pushes this view of radical independence and self-controlled destiny. God and His will are incidental at best, ignored or fought at worst. Faith is something made to fit into what we already want out of life. Instead of being formed by faith, we tailor it to do what we want. Hence, the cafeteria mentality towards faith so prevelant in our culture...it is little more than a pious hobby to some that is meant to sedate my conscience and provide a sense of self-worth/ self-righteousness. Divine revelation is a matter of convenient opinion, Christ's intent wholly secondary to our own rather limited whims.
Too many times we can be like the disciples on the road to Emmaus who are discouraged because they didn't get what they thought should happen. It is that self-interest that blinds them to Christ with them and that deadened their ears to what Christ had told them before His Passion about what would happen and why it would happen. Fortunately, when Christ tells them again and makes Himself known to them, they get it and return to Jerusalem full of joy.
I always snicker at such opinion polls. It is human hubris to think that God will think that he needs to change because people want him to. Some will say that it is proof of the sensum fidei (hasn't that become a subjective term?!). But more often than not, I just picture God saying, "You know, I didn't ask what you think I should do...and when you can see as I see then I'll value your opinion."
The Church affirms the right and duty of the lay faithful to make their pastoral needs known to the Church's ministers, so I will express my here. I believe the tradition of the celibate priesthood has and is of great pastoral benefit to the Latin Church. I take objection to the efforts of some conservative Roman Catholic Churchmen to obstruct the Eastern Catholic Churches from following the discipline proper to their patrimony on this issue.
Also, while upholding the general principle for the Latin Church, I believe their might be pastoral benefit for a wider use of exceptions to this. Certainly, the ordination of men to served as clergy in other Christian communities and subsequently received into the Catholic Church is a legitimate exception. I would also see as a legitimate exception -- on a case by case basis - the ordination to the priesthood of a deacon in a stable marriage with grown children, solely to minister as curate or parochial vicar in his own parish, which he is a long serving member of and which would otherwise be wanting for priestly care and that he serve without salary.
FR RP,
That was a wonderful and thoughtful comment. Very well said. Thank you.
How about a poll regarding the EFFECT of your poll? The question to be asked is "Are you willing to subsidise a married priest and his/her family?"
The first poll needs a third option: I do not know whether it is or is not prudent at this time.
What is this "should" business? Women are incapable of being ordained priests. That's the way God made us. Just as men are incapable of being mothers.
"Should" pigs fly? "Should" polar bears become vegetarians? SHOULDS don't matter when the Creator designs you for something else.
Why do we have a celibate priesthood?
I wrote about this a couple of months ago:
http://milehimama.blogspot.com/
2...preisthood.html
**One of the rarely discussed but entirely possible outcomes of allowing a married Catholic priesthood is the decimation of the religious orders.**
Having married priest has NOT affected Orthodox monasticism in the least.
Some of the holiest priets I know are married Orthodox and Eastern Catholic priests, and I say this as a monk.
A sad chapter in American Catholic history is the hostility Eastern Catholics encountered from Roman Catholics, laity and hierarchy, because of their married priests. Countless parishes joined Orthodox churches subsequently.
I think that every male, married or unmarried should be ordained into the priesthood. It would make things a lot easier on Sundays. I could just put on some chant CDs consecrate my waffle and orange juice and I'd have the rest of the day to myself. Can you make that your next poll question?
Bp. Basil:
There is much that the single clergy (religious sisters, priests etc.) have done to build the Catholic Church in a pragmatic way- primary & secondary schools & universities, hospitals,mission work, sacred art, literature & music-that also came from their focus on God and his work (vs. a married vocation). I think we easily trump the orthodox on this!
Father RP,
Thank you for your wise comments.
The Roman Catholic priesthood is counter-culture, just as being a serious Christian should be counter culture. Through the ages we've had 100s of 1000s of men, I daresay, who were holy, psychologically healthy, committed, fulfilled, effective priests unencumbered with a wife! and children! (How wrongheaded to want married priests).
I never felt strongly that the priesthood should be forbidden for a celibate man, who at one time or another, before taking priestly vows, felt he might have had SSA. If a person promises to be celibate what does it matter? Heterosexual urges by priests must be squelched as vigorously as homosexual ones.
In fact, in cultures/centuries past, I'd venture to guess that many men with SSA became good priests, by sublimating their desires and becoming good, faithful priests.
Given the state of our western culture, with its current screwed up sexual mores, I believe very dark days are ahead for the priestly shortage. But I am hopeful that in 100 years, when the final decay of our society reaches its zenith, there will be a new springtime in the Church.
"I don't think allowing married Priests is the solution people think it is. If that were the case, why don't we have swollen ranks of the Deaqconate?
Deacons may marry."
Deacons may not marry, married men may become deacons.
Gerald, do you have acquaintance with any married priests?
In our home there is the sacrament of holy orders, because of these orders, my husband burns the candle at both ends. He doesn't have a parish to run or have a staff. There are not enough days in the week for all that he needs to attend to as it is, he is still a working man and father. Many weeks go by and we just look at each other in amazement to wonder where have the days gone and when is the next time he will be able to just sit and relax and have time to read and enjoy nature and his grandchildren. Married clergy is not the answer.
With all due respect Bp. Basil and Little Gal, both the western and eastern rites have added to the overall growth of faith. There be no need for a contest between the two.
I think an interesting poll subject would be, what are bases for priests' holy vocations? Also, what the laity believes the priestly vocation entails.
And re: a priest marrying: Why would he (no she's, either!) want to be miserable like the rest of us?
That's a joke! Sorry! Hope the Mrs. doesn't see it!
"With all due respect Bp. Basil and Little Gal, both the western and eastern rites have added to the overall growth of faith. There be no need for a contest between the two."
Fr. RP:
Let me provide one example of what I am talking about. The Roman Catholic educational system in the U.S. lifted generations of Catholic immigrant children from the lower classes into higher ones thru primary & secondary schools and universities. R.C. professional schools produced physicians, lawyers etc. To say that there was/is a similar system for the eastern rite would not be correct. I would find it personally disrespectful not to give credit to the generations of religious sisters who founded the primary & secondary schools in particular and who sacrificed and gave much. This is factual information. To state that the eastern rite accomplished the same thing would not be correct.
And, although I live in a major metropolitan area, I cannot name one hospital established by the orthodox.
Keep the feminists out of the Church! They've destroyed society enough.
"If one could give total service to the Church, like a Priest, and be married, then why don't we have more Deacons?"
Because in most places the number of men allowed to become deacons is tightly restricted. Don't misunderstand me, the discernment for the deaconate should be every bit as thorough as for the priesthood. But while most diocese have a process by which proponents for the priesthood are welcomed at all times, many only accept deacons at specific times, often years pass between times applications for discernment are excepted.
Also not all priest want to have a deacon in their parish. I won't speculate on the reason.
I am suspicious of the claim that accepting married men to the priesthood would decimate the religious orders. It has not done so in the East. Also it would be foolish, if the Church were considering allowing married men to be ordained for it not to first consider raising married deacons as the initial step in this process. Such men have already proven their ability to act as members of the clergy, and balance a family life. Perhaps it would even be best to require any married man who aspired to the priesthood to first spend a prolonged period as a deacon (and not just the short time present priest spend as transitional deacons.)Such men are likely to have already been married for many years, and must already have had the permission of their wife to enter the clerical state.
I do not believe this is the answer to the priest shortage, but think that it might have merit for other reasons. And, of course, I support the same practice used by the Eastern Churches of only making celibate men bishops.
In case you're curious, I am in favor of married priests, but not of female priests.
And I would say that it is "curious" that you would use the term "favor". It has only been since the hijacking of the spirit in the past 4 decades that these questions are even being considered in such a pushy way. So it would seem that it can only be due to this same false and co-opted "spirit" that anyone would admit to "favoring" something other than the model given of the will of Christ/God for the priesthood.
Like all of the other weaknesses that have shown themselves in these past decades - men leaving their priestly vows; the break up of marriages in the leaving of those vows; the lessening of the general sacredness of all things; - anything that would gauge itself as "good" in such an atmosphere of selfishness and narcissism should not be trusted and people would be best if they kept a pole's length from such ideas actually being considered as being actually possible....especially in order to solve just those myriads of problems that just such similar weak choices have themselves made. Will we never learn?
I'm against both of course but I find it superbly entertaining and extremely funny to hear this response: "married priests but no women"...LMHO..of course of course!
Any women out there besides me find this typical?
Alrighty then....so the men can still have their cake and eat it too..BUT SCREW THE WOMEN (pun intended)...I just love the world
My two cents, if not being able to be married and be a priest prevents someone from being a priest, I would not want them to be a priest. When you follow God you must be prepared to give up EVERYTHING, that includes a love life, children, the car, house, movie time, politics, personal views which dissent from Doctrine. The priest is nailed to the cross in the place of Christ in contemporary society, just as Peter was.
The priesthood of Jesus does not make sense without celibacy, if you disagree go to a School of Theology and take a class on celibacy. Then you will understand.
**There is much that the single clergy (religious sisters, priests etc.) have done to build the Catholic Church in a pragmatic way-**
Sisters are NOT clergy. Try again.
My point is that having married priests has not affected having Orthodox monasteries. In fact, many Orthodox monks are widowers---even widowwed priests.
I am in favor of a Married Anglican Rite (i believe we will have an Anglican Rite one day) as well as married Easter Priests. However we Latins i am opposed to the Idea for us.
"The priesthood of Jesus does not make sense without celibacy, if you disagree go to a School of Theology and take a class on celibacy. Then you will understand."
Chris. This literally CAN NOT be true. There are thousands of married Eastern Catholic Priests and Orthodox Priests who are ever bit as much Priests of Jesus Christ as any celibate Catholic or Orthodox Priest.
This is a discipline of the Church, not doctrine or dogma. It should be based on what the Holy Father and Bishops believe is best for the Church at a given time in history.
BTW, we do have lots of permanent Deacons. Over 10,000 in the U.S. alone. The number of clergy in the U.S. is at a record high, despite the decline in Priests, due to all these Deacons.
I would think 10,000 or 20,000 married Priests (in the U.S. for example) would be a great service to the Church. Even if they can not dedicate all their time to the Church.
Ok Here is my question: As some have stated here that in the early church married priests MAY have discontinued relations with their wives. Does this mean that the act of marriage is considered sinful? I have argued with protestants many times that we do NOT think that married sexuality is sinful. Am i wrong?
I was trying to find out the divorce rate for Orthodox clergy but could only come up with stats that said that Greek Orthodox overall have a lower divorce rate(Yeah!).
I found this statement, indicating the same problem that we have have run into with priests also(cept priests who are stressed out or lead astray by the world have OTHER issues apparently!):
"Divorce rates among Orthodox clergy used to be minimal. They have soared in recent years, at least in this country. Although the pastor’s role hasn’t really changed, the stresses have increased enormously, largely because our clergy have bought into the workaholism and sleep-deprivation of most of their parishioners. And if they have not, then they are made to feel guilty. It’s a no-win situation."
So lets help relieve that stress on clegymen! And perhaps if the right safeguards are put in place they would do well in the RC Church. For instance, since the theoretical ranks of the priesthood would swell if Marriage is allowed, there would be enough priests to have two for large parishes and circuit riders could be relieved and stay in one place. Perhaps this could solve many problems if done right?
Sparks
I must admit I was a little thrown off by the first question.
I took it as having married men (first) being ordained after conversion from a protestant branch wherein they were a pastor and THEN being ordained (second). In this case, I'd say yes.
But on second read, is it asking a general question of married men being priests? To this I'd say (resoundingly) NO.
"When you follow God you must be prepared to give up EVERYTHING, that includes a love life, children, the car, house, movie time, politics, personal views which dissent from Doctrine."
1. well, we are ALL called to follow God.
2. Maybe we should think of some trade-offs. Let Father take a wife, but give up his season football tickets or membership in the Union League Club.
Just a note - deacons cannot get married, but they may be married.
The same is true for Orthodox - once ordained one cannot marry, but if you are already married you may still be ordained.
Any "solution" to a priesthood "shortage" (I don't like that term; priests are not a material commodity like plywood, pork bellies, or aluminum) must result in an increase in vocations to priests, AND consecrated religious like. If we ignore the whole spectrum of religious vocations, we fail to understand the real root cause of the problem.
Priests, sisters, brothers, monks all come from the laity--usually come from devout families. So, let's find the real source of the problem before we propose solutions.
Katherine, yes, we are all called to follow God. However, notice my language, 'When you -follow- God...' Not called to follow, but follow. Following God means detachment, which includes those season football tickets or membership to some club.
One thing that has been overlooked in all of this is that no one has a 'Right' to ordination. Only after much personal discernment and the discernment of the competent authority can ordination to Holy orders be bestowed. And in the case of married men, family discernment and permisssion of the wife are an additional requirement.
Married men ordained to the Permanent Diaconate have a set of priorities that must always be in the forefront:
1. Marriage and family--We were called to the Sacrament of Matrimony and to become the "Domestic Church" long before the call to the Diaconate.
2. Our secular career/job as most married permanent deacons will still work in secular professions, though there are some that work in diocesan or parish offices.
3. Our ministry as permanent deacons. Each deacon and his family have to discern what type of service and how much they can commit and communicate with one another, their bishop and the priests with which they work.
If either of the first two begin to need more attention, then one must step back from how much they are giving to the diaconal ministry. If a permanent deacon needs to spend more time and attention on raising children and the family life, or if his job needs more attention, then that is where the focus needs to be, if only for a time. This will happen more in the case of married clergy than in the celibate clergy, although many priests and sometimes even bishops need to take advantage of a sabbatical from time to time so they can remain healthy and focused in their tremendous Call to Holy Orders.
A personal Note to elm: Thank you for your dedication to the ministry of the permanent diaconate. Remember that your husband and you must consistently take some personal time to relax just to be with each other and to be family. Many permanent deacons burn out, wives become resentful toward the Church, and families become disillusioned because this important and delicate balance is not maintained. It takes great deep prayer and healthy communication to know what your limits are in the ordained diaconal ministry and when to say "no" in order to maintain a healthy marriage, a good work ethic, and a healthy and vibrant diaconal ministry.
I give thanks to God always for you, for the grace of God that is given you in Christ Jesus: That in all things you are made rich in Him, in all speaking, and in all knowledge. (1 Cor 1:4-5)
Katherine,
What about the vast majority of preists like myself who do not have season tickets to anything(heck, I have passed up heaven knows how many single day tickets because of conflicts with ministry), belong to no clubs, posh or otherwise, only see golf courses as we drive by them as we are going to the next event...what do we give up so we can get wives? Just wondering.
Touchy topic. Following what Gerald said, it was RC Archbishop John Ireland who started the Orthodox presence in the Twin Cities when he kicked the Unitates out citing it'd be better for them to go into schism than to have Tradition compromised (if only he could see the Church now). The reception Eastern Catholics get from "their own" is hostile at best.
Married priests has in NO WAY ever hurt the Orthodox Church or monasticism. In Minnesota alone I can count all the celibate clergy on one hand. Of course being a married priest is hard, but from what I hear it's just as hard to be a celibate one because they don't have a family and often are alone...alot. Orthodox bishops are monks. To me that's a clear choice: family or monasticism (then maybe if chosed Episcopate). The current Roman practice of compulsory celibacy for the Latin Rite is one of our beefs with you.
I'm not sticking my nose in your business. All I'm saying is that I seriously don't see how ordaining married men can possibly hurt you. My current pastor is married with kids, my first was not. A priest is a priest is a priest.
According to Michael Rose (Goodbye! Good Men), the decline in the Priesthood is the result of "ambivalence and dissent within the Church".
It's not about celibacy at all.
http://www.amazon.com/Goodbye-Go...s/dp/
0967637112
Leo, here here. Celibacy has nothing to do with it. In addition to that, in response to the Eastern married priests, my understanding that a 24-hour sexual abstinence prior to the celebration of the Eucharist is required. This would not be possible in RC as there is daily Mass. If someone more familiar with the Eastern Orthodoxy would mind to confirm/deny what I have heard, it would be much appreciated.
"Katherine,
What about the vast majority of preists like myself who do not have season tickets to anything(...belong to no clubs, posh or otherwise, only see golf courses as we drive by them as we are going to the next event...what do we give up so we can get wives? Just wondering.
FR RP"
In that case, no 'eHarmony' for you, Father!
"Katherine, yes, we are all called to follow God. However, notice my language, 'When you -follow- God...' Not called to follow, but follow. Following God means detachment, which includes those season football tickets or membership to some club.
Chris"
Yes, Chris. But the call to holiness is universal, not just to the clergy and vowed religious. You comments are on target, just not particular to the priesthood or vowed religious life.
"In addition to that, in response to the Eastern married priests, my understanding that a 24-hour sexual abstinence prior to the celebration of the Eucharist is required."
If sex between husband and wife is seen as something sacred in the theology of the body, why would abstinence be required before Mass?
I thought only (some) coaches demanded that
Its my understanding that in the Eastern/Orthodox tradition, married men may become priests, but priests may not marry. Also, married priests are limited. They may not become Bishops. Their wives also must agree that they are willing to allow the Church to come before them. They are part of the sacrifice (of the priesthood).
If food is seen as something sacred and necessary to the body, why would abstinence be required before Mass?
It's not that food is dirty or anything like that. It's simply a matter of setting aside something good for a while, as a sign that you are putting God first for a while. There also seems to be some sort of connection between voluntary deprivation and better prayer.
In the Eastern tradition, and in the Western tradition until the last few centuries recently, there were all sorts of things one fasted from during Lent and at certain times during ordinary time. You couldn't get married during Lent, for instance, and married couples were called to abstain from sex "for the sake of prayer" during certain times of the year, including parts of Lent. (If I recall correctly.)
And if the Church called us to hop on our left foot all during St. Swithin's Day, it wouldn't be because St. Swithin had cursed our right feet for all eternity. It would probably be because St. Swithin's leg got cut off by a Mangatuziarian soldier, and we were getting a chance to better appreciate our wonderful God-given right feet and emulate St. Swithin's patience in suffering.
Little Gal, I don't understand it myself. That is why I am asking for someone to validate or deny it who knows about the theology of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Katherine, I didn't specify the priesthood because celibacy is not particular to the priesthood. The call to holiness is not particular to it, neither is a life of sacrifice. My point is that following God involves sacrifice, priests MUST demonstrate that. This is one aspect of Celibacy but the theology is much deeper, again anyone who disagrees with the RC Church's standing on this, read up on the theology of celibacy. It makes sense.
No, if Christ chose a celibate priesthood shouldn't that be followed? As for women priests--if the mother of God was not chosen for this role, then we have another clear idea of what Christ wanted for His Church.
I do wish that the Church would rid us of "extraordinary ministers" and return to altar rails, with the reception of Communion on the tongue, but that is my lonely hope, I guess.
"My point is that following God involves sacrifice, priests MUST demonstrate that. This is one aspect of Celibacy"
Following God, which we all are called to do, involves sacrifice and all who answer the call MUST demonsrate that.
I have a son who is a priest. He tells me that for him, celibacy is not a sacrifice but a joy.
You are not alone in that desire Patricia. Technically speaking, 'extraordinary ministers' are a concession for area communion would otherwise take too long to distribute and the nothing was mentioned about the alter rails, it just happened. If people would just read and follow the Vat II documents and GIRM these would not be issues.
In that case, no 'eHarmony' for you, Father!
OK, Katherine, I assume you are talking about that cheesy dating service...are you accusing me of breaking my vows?
Hmmm, I guess I'm always the last to know about these things.
If the rule were changed (and I'm not agitating for, nor would I mind), I think there would need to be a minimum age, or a minimum numbers of years of marriage, before a married man could become a priest. Some of the "family priority" problems are similar to the military, so the Church might consult with the programs in place. (I did have to laugh at a comment I've heard, about how "a priests family would have to move around the whole DIOCESE every four years or so!!" err, there's this globe, around which US military members are deployed, see...)
"If food is seen as something sacred and necessary to the body, why would abstinence be required before Mass?"
Ok, so following your logic, why wouldn't married lay people be asked to abstain from sex 24 hours before receiving communion?
Katherine:
I think that you and your son, the priest, must have some interesting conversations on moral issues, n'est pas?
Married men yes. There were married Priests even in the west until the late 1000"s. Women never and no. If Men were alowed to be married there would be a Surge..well maybe not a surge but alot more Priests applying to seminary. I personaly know 5 men me included who would be Priests if we could marry. I personaly couldn't handle never getting married and having a family though. But if I could Marry I would apply to a seminary tomorrow.
Maureen, I loved that!
Chris, you are right and everyone else is wrong You GO!
Why didn't Jesus marry?? (oooo, aahhhh, philosophical question)
And heres a conundrum: okay what if one of these priestesses people, or whatever they are....female ministers from another religion, AFTER being married...converts to Catholicism...can she still have the equivalency?? female deacon??
well yeah I know the answer is no, BUT WHY pray tell?? whats the diff?
Jesus didn't marry for a number of reasons, one he himself already perfectly reflect the love which exists in the Trinity, another is that he came to save ALL of humanity and could not rightfully dedicated himself to such an exclusive relationship.
As far a female deacons, Deacons must be male (as you said) this is because deacons participate (to an extent) in the particular ministerial priesthood of Christ which carried the requirement of male gender.
Now, Little Gal... In a church where there is only Mass on the weekend this makes sense. HOWEVER, in the RC Church priests celebrate Mass daily. Thus a 24 hour sexual 'fast' (as it were) would essentially mean celibacy as every 24 hours they celebrate Mass. (Thanks Maureen for that wonderful insight)
"Katherine:
I think that you and your son, the priest, must have some interesting conversations on moral issues, n'est pas?"
We have wonderful conversations. Thank you for asking. He is a terrific son.
I have never heard of the 24 hour abstinance rule for married Latin Priests. We currently have a number of married Latin Rite Priests who are converts. I'm sure they say Mass daily, and this does not apply to them.
In any case, fasts are a matter of discipline, and can be relaxed by the magesterium (just like the Friday abstinance from meat was relaxed).
the 24hour rule is for the Eastern Orthodox, further, the carnal fast for Fridays was not 'relaxed' it is able to be substituted. Most people don't do it though. It is explicitly clear in Canon Law that Catholics are supposed to recognize days of repentance (all Fridays with noted exception of solemnities) with a fast of meats, or something of a comparable nature.
Regardless, the 24hour sexual 'fast' is not the issue. The issue is that celibacy is PART of the priesthood. It is not only in the priesthood but it is certainly part of the RC priesthood and has been since the very early Christian days. Read up on the history and theology of celibacy and you will understand.
Married clergy in the RC church is a concession, a compromise that will only yield more progressive attitudes and less defense of Truth.
Lastly, to any men who say they would be priests if they could be married, I have a question. Have you ever studied in a seminary? Have you taken any classes or read any books on Celibacy? Are you a permanent deacon? Finally, the big question, do you feel CALLED to be a priest? If so, why are you married? If not, why are you willing to become a priest if you could be married?
I believe that God calls people primarily to a live of marriage or celibacy (celibacy essentially as a marriage to God and the Church). A celibate dedicated their life to the Church and God in the way that a man dedicates his life to his wife or a woman dedicates her life to her husband. Is there any argument for married priests other than 'it will increase the number of vocations'?? Because bottom line, God is in control of the number of people whom he calls. The 'shortage' of priests (I believe we are spoiled and have an abundance of parishes myself) is caused by two things...
1. God is not calling any more men than those who being ordained.
2. Men are not listening to God's call.
Most likely a combination of both, either way, the cure to the 'shortage' is prayer. Prayer for vocations, prayer for men's openness to a call to the priesthood, and above all a willingness to be an example to young men by seeking the will of God in our own lives and allowing a few parishes to close so that the priests we have are not over worked and spend their weekend driving from one parish to another. Never having the opportunity to be more than a sacramental ATM because they have another parish to celebrate Mass at 15 mins away from the last Mass.
"I personaly know 5 men me included who would be Priests if we could marry. I personaly couldn't handle never getting married and having a family though. But if I could Marry I would apply to a seminary tomorrow."
A sure sign you have no vocation.
Sounds like the young man from Scripture who kept the Commandments but couldn't bring himself to leave everything and follow Christ.
FR. PHILIP SAID: My guess is that a married priesthood would cripple the orders for decades.
Fr. Philip, OP
RUSTLER SAYS: You are 100% correct. For the life of me I cannot grasp why anyone would want priestesses.
Power. It's all about the power, Rustler45. Self-induced priest shortage to lay waste The Church, and hand it all over to the laity. If they could have pulled that off, it would be an easy ride for the Prots. They could walk right in like a turnkey business operation. Too bad they didn't reckon on The Holy Ghost, eh?
Commenting by HaloScan
