Fake celibacy, part 2
Monday, April 27, 2009
By Bryan Cones
Comments (6)
Despite the fact that I've evidently been denounced to the Holy Office for my allegedly unorthodox views about mandatory clerical celibacy, I thought I'd pass along this editorial from America magazine, suggesting, shockingly, that the U.S. bishops take the lead in exploring solutions to the U.S. clergy shortage, including discussion of married priests--which, of course, we already have.
Discussion??? This is well-covered territory. How about we start drawing up policies and procedures for the ordination of married men and the rehabilitation of those who have left to marry. If it's good enough for former Lutheran and Episcopalian ministers who are now married Roman Catholic priests, it ought to be good enough for the 25,000 inactive or laicized priests!
Posted in: In preview mode
I find it interesting that
By Kelly (not verified) on Tuesday, April 28, 2009I find it interesting that some Catholics cling so hard to doctrinal teachings, as if they have never changed over the 2000 years of our church's history. Since priests were able to marry in the past, it was actually a change to force them to be celibate. But since hindsight is 20/20, maybe it would be helpful to the discussions if we looked back at the reasons that motivated the Church leadership to make that change? Maybe there were legitimate concerns that we have not considered? (My mom always told me it would simply cost the Church too much to support the priests' families, but I'm sure that over-simplifying the matter.)
And, Bryan, keep up the good work! You are a great journalist and I, for one, appreciate your willingness to challenge our established orthodoxy. The Church has always changed and grown over time, and almost always it has been for the better. So it would be a sad day indeed if we started to prohibit this kind of thinking now!
And, as an aside on this topic, my sister's parish "borrowed" a married Episcopalian priest for a couple years. He was very good; I really enjoyed his homilies when I visited her and we went to mass at her church. She said nobody in the parish had any problems with the fact that he was married, and it didn't seem to interfere with his priestly duties at all. So maybe it really is just a money issue.
Episcopalian clerics
By TIMOTHY G. B. O'ROURKE (not verified) on Tuesday, April 28, 2009Greetings,
An Episcopalian cleric cannot confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Penance, Holy Orders, or Anointing of the Sick. How is that not interfering with his priestly duties at all? I reckon I am just too orthodox to understand.
Timothy+
married Priests
By laskalass (not verified) on Tuesday, April 28, 2009The main drawback to having married Priests from what I can determine is simply this.... does the Church support the family? Offer insurance health care etc for the family??? I think its simply a monetary consideration. We have a married Priest here in Anchorage, Alaska and having come from the Russian Orthodox Church I would only want my Priest to be married. I feel he shares concerns and understanding about my own marriage and family matters when I go to him for any counseling. I also feel he is a whole person experiencing the same problems as the rest of us. And yes, I do believe that such a state does definitely cut back on Priests who are sexually deviant. The main problem we had in Russian Orthodox was alcoholism. Not molesting little kids, cant say it never happened but it certainly was rare. Married Priests are the only way to save the Priesthood and I for one cant wait for this to happen!
Inactive Priests vs. New Clergy
By Jerry (not verified) on Monday, April 27, 2009There is obviously nothing wrong with advocating a married priesthood since most priests were married for hundreds of years. My only contention on a previous post was to point out it was incorrect to make the case it would end or even significantly curtail sex scandals.
It seems self evident that making an exception to allowing married priests enter the Church where whole congregations entering the Catholic faith makes sense. In those cases the ordained is making a radical step toward the Catholic faith. In contrast, bringing back to the priestly activities those who could not meet their original vows is moving away from Catholic discipline of celibacy which is a strong statement against the oversexualization of the culture.
I'm sure there are great priests who have left their vocation to marry, but my guess is we'd be watering down the quality if we had a wholesale return of their ranks. In contrast bringing in the ordained who have moved from other faiths with the passion of converts most likely strengthens the ranks.
Question
By TIMOTHY G. B. O'ROURKE (not verified) on Monday, April 27, 2009Hi,
How do you feel about abrogating the vows required of Catholic priests (that are firmly and DOCTRINALLY established on extensive, legitimate, solidified, and crested organic development of the magisterium from hundreds, if not thousands, of documents from said magisterium, from Apostolic Letters, Encyclicals, Councils to Catechisms, etc., etc., etc.)and instead forming Catholic men to be married priests from the start, if they so desire, in seminary or even before?
Timothy+
Compliant
By TIMOTHY G. B. O'ROURKE (not verified) on Monday, April 27, 2009Hi :-)
That is the CDF not the Holy Office (and if it were the Inquisition, well, you already know).
Moreover, citing another publication from an order that has recently had more than its fair share of confrontation with the CDF, and the publication itself being, I dare say, more liberal than yours, does not in any way substantiate your case.
I will pray that you will become compliant.
Timothy+
U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. Links are not allowed and comments with them will be moderated or deleted. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.
