Originally posted by Zach82:
I still hold out the faith that the pope and his followers can be brought back to the fold in God's own time.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:That is also the discipline of Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome. If the reporting is accurate (a big if) then the Cardinals ignorance of this is rather worrying.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It may be of interest to note that the Eastern Orthodox churches do allow Priests to be married before they become ordained, but not after - it is estimated that 90% of Orthodox Priests are married.
However, if a married man does become a Priest, he can never become a Bishop - Bishops must be unmarried and celibate.
quote:There have always been a few married Roman Catholic priests, every now and again, due to some odd circumstances or other. (Such as converts from Orthodoxy) But its not been generally permitted for a very long time. Early middle ages at the most recent.
Originally posted by daisymay:
Didn't a while ago, the men were allowed to be married and become Roman Catholic priests?
quote:Not entirely true. he can't become a bishop while his wife is alive. he can become one if his wife passes on. He can then become a celibate priest (monk) and subsequently be elevated to bishop.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
However, if a married man does become a Priest, he can never become a Bishop - Bishops must be unmarried and celibate.
quote:a century or so ago, when a large number of Eastern Catholics came to this country, they approached the Catholic hierarchy regarding their parishes etc (whatever the process is for being recognized). the Catholic powers that be in the US at the time were horrified by the idea of married Catholic priests, so they rejected these requests. these Eastern Catholics then, en masse, converted to Orthodoxy. They joined what is now the OCA (my own jurisdiction), and now their descendants make up a huge proportion of OCA parishes.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Priests in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church may be married also. The rules are similar to those of the Orthodox Churches.
In the US, the Conference of Catholic Bishops has at times suspended this privilege, on the (rather flimsy) excuse that married Eastern Rite clergy might confuse the Latin faithful. And of course, the USCCB is predominantly composed of Latin Rite bishops...
quote:The problem was that in those days the Eastern Catholics were placed under the jurisdiction of Latin Rite bishops, who just had absolutely no idea what to do with these people. They (the bishops) were all from Ireland and France and Italy, and had almost certainly never seen a Ukrainian Greek Catholic before, and likely knew only vaguely of their existence. Thus, they enforced clerical celibacy on new Eastern priests, and also 'encouraged' the changing of liturgical practices (the process known to day as 'liturgical Latinisation'). Happily, both of those trends, to the extent they continued until that time, were ended with Vatican II's document Orientialum Ecclesiarum, which ensured that the Eastern churches would be able to continue with their own traditions and rites.
the Catholic powers that be in the US at the time were horrified by the idea of married Catholic priests, so they rejected these requests.
quote:Also, an ecclesiastical divorce may be granted, such as usually happens when both spouses in a marriage agree to this, with the relevant blessings from bishop and spiritual father, in order that one or both may enter the monastic life. That is another situation in which a married man who becomes a priest may later be a bishop.
Originally posted by Anyuta:
quote:Not entirely true. he can't become a bishop while his wife is alive. he can become one if his wife passes on. He can then become a celibate priest (monk) and subsequently be elevated to bishop.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
However, if a married man does become a Priest, he can never become a Bishop - Bishops must be unmarried and celibate.
quote:That's the rationale, but like most OT rules of discipline, are qualified in their current applicability. In any case, bishops can dispense or (in some circumstances) confessors can absolve.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Isn't the reason for the rule, that if you want all priest to celebrate the Mass/Liturgy/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread Service every day, in stead of just on Sundays and special holy days, Lev 15:16-18 makes priesthood incompatible with the normal rhythms of married life?
quote:Yeah so true Ken. But i think it's not really wrong to permit priest from marriages. I think every man has been given the chance to have their very own family just as what God has ordained to us that "We should go to the world and multiply."
Originally posted by ken:
quote:There have always been a few married Roman Catholic priests, every now and again, due to some odd circumstances or other. (Such as converts from Orthodoxy) But its not been generally permitted for a very long time. Early middle ages at the most recent.
Originally posted by daisymay:
Didn't a while ago, the men were allowed to be married and become Roman Catholic priests?
quote:Then you haven't read your Bible very closely: Matthew 8:14
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
I am a convert, like the late Cardinal Newman. I think we should allow RC priests to take a wife before they finish seminary, as well as become bishops. Let's go back to the way it was 1000 years ago. Peter was the first bishop and pope: did he have a wife? I have read nothing about the situation one way or another in the Bible...
quote:.
In this context [the scarcity of priests] the Synod Fathers have affirmed the importance of the inestimable gift of clerical celibacy in the practice of the Latin Church
quote:I believe there is a reference to Peter's MiL somewhere in the Gospels (checked, it's Mark 1:29-31) so he was married. A friend raised this with a Catholic acquaintance and was told something odd about what had happened to the wife - it can't have been that he divorced her, but in some way she was left out of his missionary activities. This may have been the opinion of the acquaintance rather than the church, but I remember being a bit surprised. It wasn't that she had died.
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
I am a convert, like the late Cardinal Newman. I think we should allow RC priests to take a wife before they finish seminary, as well as become bishops. Let's go back to the way it was 1000 years ago. Peter was the first bishop and pope: did he have a wife? I have read nothing about the situation one way or another in the Bible...
quote:On that point at least there is no doubt. He was all over the BBC news saying it. I heard the interview twice, since it was on the national bulletin and, at greater length, on the Scottish.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Having said all this, I tend to think that Cardinal Keith O'Brien's words (if he said them at all)
quote:Perhaps it is unsurprising that you have found your preconceptions supported on the website of an organisation committed to campaigning to change Catholic teaching to accord with your preconceptions.
Originally posted by Penny S:
I found this timeline while searching for Pope Urban II's 1095 appalling action of selling priest's wives into slavery and abandoning their children, for which I only had the source of Peter Beresford Ellis. It's very interesting on the subject.
A Brief History of Priestly Celibacy
It includes references to women as priests as well.
There are other sites which mention the matter I was searching for, but this chronicle seemed particularly interesting. Urban's behaviour seems to be part of historical patterns of assuming women have no status as fully human. Other incidents suggest that this did not always apply to popes.
quote:I wonder if you or someone would expand on this. I know little about the churches of the eastern rites but am assuming from the quote that the spiritual and pastoral expectations of their clergy are somewhat different.
originally posted by Trisagion
Much of the spirituality and many of the pastoral expectations surrounding priesthood in the Latin Rite have become thoroughly intertwined with the requirement for celibacy.
quote:Have you been reading stuff by the fiction writer Dan Brown by any chance?
Originally posted by daisymay:
And are some of the RC thinking that Jesus, a man, was not married and so the RC priests should be "copying" Jesus? And there was also another story about Jesus having been the husband of the woman, Mary Magdalene, Jesus healed and got happy, and she escaped after Jesus was killed and got alive again, to further west and had a child.
quote:Welcome to the world of Church History! It is a fascinating subject, and very complex, all about the mess we have made of Christ's one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I am sorry if any Catholics think I am trying to tell them what to do. That is not the case at all. The issue was raised by a senior Catholic and I was interested.
quote:I wonder if you or someone would expand on this. I know little about the churches of the eastern rites but am assuming from the quote that the spiritual and pastoral expectations of their clergy are somewhat different.
originally posted by Trisagion
Much of the spirituality and many of the pastoral expectations surrounding priesthood in the Latin Rite have become thoroughly intertwined with the requirement for celibacy.
quote:Yeah.
Originally posted by Penny S:
The children were also sold into slavery, and this teaching was earlier than Urban. These slaves were not permitted to be redeemed. The money went into the Papal coffers. No further comment.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
We are of course talking about feudal society, where a slave was the lowest class of serf and less than 10% of peasants were "freemen" (which again does not mean the same as a free citizen today). We are also talking about a situation where considerable benefices are attached to clerical positions, and where clergy did pass these on to their offspring, de facto siphoning off Church wealth. I can't find anything resembling a decent historical discussion on the web, just heretical websites using one sentence snippets for rhetoric. But if one wants to avoid anachronism, one would have to at least consider what back then happened if a serf had illegitimate offspring. For the Church would here act as the over-lord of the clergy, and this clearly is a move to reenforce continence among clergy (also within marriage, see above, but eventually leading to celibacy). Quite possibly what Urban II decreed still remains problematic, even horrible, but without consideration of the historical context such judgement will be deeply flawed.
quote:AIUI, former Anglican priests joining the Ordinariate may be ordained as Catholic priests. I wonder how their arrival has influenced views in the Catholic Church?
Originally posted by ken:
quote:There have always been a few married Roman Catholic priests, every now and again, due to some odd circumstances or other. (Such as converts from Orthodoxy) But its not been generally permitted for a very long time. Early middle ages at the most recent.
Originally posted by daisymay:
Didn't a while ago, the men were allowed to be married and become Roman Catholic priests?
quote:It hasn't really had much influence to be honest. It's viewed as a bit of a curiosity in diocesan parishes, but the context is clearly understood.
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
quote:AIUI, former Anglican priests joining the Ordinariate may be ordained as Catholic priests. I wonder how their arrival has influenced views in the Catholic Church?
Originally posted by ken:
quote:There have always been a few married Roman Catholic priests, every now and again, due to some odd circumstances or other. (Such as converts from Orthodoxy) But its not been generally permitted for a very long time. Early middle ages at the most recent.
Originally posted by daisymay:
Didn't a while ago, the men were allowed to be married and become Roman Catholic priests?
quote:Galileo, Newton, Napoleon, Darwin, Marx, and Freud are all jolly interesting chaps, but its hard to see why they are the only ones mentioned by name between the 17th and 19th centuries, or what they've got to do with the history of priestly celibacy.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Penny S:
[qb] I found this timeline [...]
A Brief History of Priestly Celibacy
quote:I can't speak for anyone else but the requirements the Vatican places on its ordinands directly impact the Vatican's opinion on orders in our own churches. For those of us who would like to see the church reunited but don't think the current position of Rome is the right one on issues of celibacy, the ordination of women and same-sex relationships, the hope that Rome may, in the future, permit a diversity of opinion and practice on these issues is of great significance.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I, furthermore, cannot really see why the requirements of the Roman Catholic priesthood are any concern whatsoever for non-RC's. Why care? I suspect it has something to do with a perceived sin against sexuality, but let's not speculate.
quote:Seeing as Rome recognizes the orders of some married priests, it doesn't seem to me that clerical celibacy is any great hindrance to ecumenical reconciliation. At least not of the order of the other hindrances to reconciliation between our communions.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:I can't speak for anyone else but the requirements the Vatican places on its ordinands directly impact the Vatican's opinion on orders in our own churches. For those of us who would like to see the church reunited but don't think the current position of Rome is the right one on issues of celibacy, the ordination of women and same-sex relationships, the hope that Rome may, in the future, permit a diversity of opinion and practice on these issues is of great significance.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I, furthermore, cannot really see why the requirements of the Roman Catholic priesthood are any concern whatsoever for non-RC's. Why care? I suspect it has something to do with a perceived sin against sexuality, but let's not speculate.
quote:But dialogue appeared to be making progress 50 years ago, and Rome has since then cited Anglican moves on the ordination of women as being a key barrier; as indicative of a fundamentally different understanding of priesthood (rather than the more legalistic claims about the validity of the apostolic succession in Anglican orders).
Originally posted by Zach82:
Not the least being that Rome declared our orders invalid like 200 years ago, and considering they are reordaining our priests, it doesn't seem they've come 'round since. Move on, dear heart.
quote:The RSV Catholic edition translates those verses as follows.
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity.
5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?
quote:The obvious meaning of that text is not what the Catholic commentator says it is. I agree that it does not necessarily imply that all bishops must be married men. Rather it infers that a man who is known to have been faithful to one wife and is doing a good job has demonstrated the sort of fatherly capabilities which will make him a good carer of "the church" - in this context clearly the people of God. Someone who demonsrates the best characteristics of husband and father within a marriage has provided some assurance about how "holy and blameless and virtuous" (Chrysostom) they have been in practice. An ounce of practice worth a pound of precept?
4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; 5 for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church?
quote:Progress has been made, but not towards their recognition of our orders, which in my mind is an utterly essential step to reunion. They thought our orders invalid before, and they think our order just as invalid now. So I don't feel too bad for their offended sensibilities.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:But dialogue appeared to be making progress 50 years ago, and Rome has since then cited Anglican moves on the ordination of women as being a key barrier; as indicative of a fundamentally different understanding of priesthood (rather than the more legalistic claims about the validity of the apostolic succession in Anglican orders).
Originally posted by Zach82:
Not the least being that Rome declared our orders invalid like 200 years ago, and considering they are reordaining our priests, it doesn't seem they've come 'round since. Move on, dear heart.
quote:Very true. I've often thought that if the RCC lets priests marry, then it'll have to let them divorce. If the Church doesn't want to contemplate the consequences of married priests then it might as well leave things as they are.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
A mother of an Anglican priest once told a prospective bride:
"You will always be #2 in his eyes. Mother Church married Him first."
Married clergy is not a panacea.
quote:Well, there has been some suggestion that the involvement of Old Catholic and some Lutheran Bishops (who are recognised as having maintained apostolic succession) in consecrating Anglican Bishops has called the Vatican's declarations of a century ago into question.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Progress has been made, but not towards their recognition of our orders, which in my mind is an utterly essential step to reunion. They thought our orders invalid before, and they think our order just as invalid now. So I don't feel too bad for their offended sensibilities.
quote:The Dutch Touch hasn't changed matters in the least, and the reordination of priests is the proof. It was always a long shot anyhow.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Well, there has been some suggestion that the involvement of Old Catholic and some Lutheran Bishops (who are recognised as having maintained apostolic succession) in consecrating Anglican Bishops has called the Vatican's declarations of a century ago into question.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Progress has been made, but not towards their recognition of our orders, which in my mind is an utterly essential step to reunion. They thought our orders invalid before, and they think our order just as invalid now. So I don't feel too bad for their offended sensibilities.
Ultimately you're correct in that it's not likely to happen any time soon; but I do hold out the hope that the church will be re-united on earth at some point in the future.
quote:Completely irrelevant. No-one is going to look at a legalistic little argument like that and suddenly come to the shocking discovery that Protestant churches are in fact just the same as Catholic churches. Or if anyone did then they'd probably become a Protestant, if they weren't already. Just as almost no-one looks at the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession and suddenly realises "Oh Noes!
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Well, there has been some suggestion that the involvement of Old Catholic and some Lutheran Bishops (who are recognised as having maintained apostolic succession) in consecrating Anglican Bishops has called the Vatican's declarations of a century ago into question.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Protestant priests are not real priests and Protestant sacraments are not real sacraments! Whatever shall I do now?!" and the few who do go and become Catholics. quote:Oh look Mummy, Daddy's the only soldier in step.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I still hold out the faith that the pope and his followers can be brought back to the fold in God's own time.
quote:It was just a joke, Tragion.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:Oh look Mummy, Daddy's the only soldier in step.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I still hold out the faith that the pope and his followers can be brought back to the fold in God's own time.
quote:Please do not assume preconceptions. I chose that site out of all the others because it was simple. I wanted to confirm or disprove what I had read in Ellis (who does have preconceptions) and was surprised at the number of references. One suggested that this was at a time when the church was beginning to question the idea of slavery (think that was Wikipedia). It definitely looks as though the women were sold into slavery. And that the children were sold too did not come from that site which, for some reason, omitted it.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:Perhaps it is unsurprising that you have found your preconceptions supported on the website of an organisation committed to campaigning to change Catholic teaching to accord with your preconceptions.
Originally posted by Penny S:
I found this timeline while searching for Pope Urban II's 1095 appalling action of selling priest's wives into slavery and abandoning their children, for which I only had the source of Peter Beresford Ellis. It's very interesting on the subject.
A Brief History of Priestly Celibacy
It includes references to women as priests as well.
There are other sites which mention the matter I was searching for, but this chronicle seemed particularly interesting. Urban's behaviour seems to be part of historical patterns of assuming women have no status as fully human. Other incidents suggest that this did not always apply to popes.
quote:[Pedant Alert]
Originally posted by Penny S:
...that Peter chose to become celibate in order to carry out his mission.
...
Interesting sideline on Edward the Confessor's advertised choice of celibacy in his marriage - if he thought of kingship as some sort of priesthood, and that....
quote:You will want to file this under "Fiction, Speculative."
And there was also another story about Jesus having been the husband of the woman, Mary Magdalene, Jesus healed and got happy, and she escaped after Jesus was killed and got alive again, to further west and had a child.
quote:Would chaste be an appropriate word, also?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:[Pedant Alert]
Originally posted by Penny S:
...that Peter chose to become celibate in order to carry out his mission.
...
Interesting sideline on Edward the Confessor's advertised choice of celibacy in his marriage - if he thought of kingship as some sort of priesthood, and that....
In neither of these uses do you mean celibate: you mean sexually continent. Celibate means unmarried - from the Latin caelebs, unmarried.
quote:No. Chastity means not having any sexual relations before marriage. It also means fidelity to husband or wife during marriage.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Would chaste be an appropriate word, also?
quote:I would have made my point if I had typed what I meant to type:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
AIUI, former Anglican priests joining the Ordinariate may be ordained as Catholic priests. I wonder how their arrival has influenced views in the Catholic Church?
quote:The answer may be the same, though.
married former Anglican priests joining the Ordinariate
quote:1 Cor 7:1-5 strongly suggest that in the Primitive Church the better view was that a wholly continent marriage 'as brother and sister' was foolhardy and an aberration. So I don't think one could argue from the fact that it doesn't say whether St Peter's marriage was an ordinary one or 'as brother and sister' means that the odds are even either way.
Originally posted by Penny S:
Enoch, that reference in Corinthians is helpful, as is IngoB's remark about continence.
I have interrogated my source about the idea of what happened to Peter's wife, and it is consistent with both, since the belief he was told was that Peter chose to become celibate in order to carry out his mission.
Nothing in Corinthians to indicate either celibacy or normal marriage.
Interesting sideline on Edward the Confessor's advertised choice of celibacy in his marriage - if he thought of kingship as some sort of priesthood, and that idea was about at that time, that would make sense. (While ignoring the necessity of providing an heir.)
And it may not make sense for non-Catholics to be so engrossed in the issue, but it is interesting. And we do sometimes run across Catholic priests.
quote:Interesting, because I've always read celibate with regard to Edward. (That's what Wikipedia has, for example. And the History Learning Site, and Spartacus. Upsdell has chastity as his vow, and suggests that this prevents the consummation of his marriage, and I know that is wrong.) The other case was in conversation, and with the sort of usual looseness which crops up in these subjects.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:[Pedant Alert]
Originally posted by Penny S:
...that Peter chose to become celibate in order to carry out his mission.
...
Interesting sideline on Edward the Confessor's advertised choice of celibacy in his marriage - if he thought of kingship as some sort of priesthood, and that....
In neither of these uses do you mean celibate: you mean sexually continent. Celibate means unmarried - from the Latin caelebs, unmarried.
quote:I'd be careful about arguments from etymology to definition: it's not like we go around correcting people because they call a young ordained man a priest, even though he's not an elder, simply because it comes from the Gk. presbyteros or something. To pick an example out of the hat.
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:Interesting, because I've always read celibate with regard to Edward. (That's what Wikipedia has, for example. And the History Learning Site, and Spartacus. Upsdell has chastity as his vow, and suggests that this prevents the consummation of his marriage, and I know that is wrong.) The other case was in conversation, and with the sort of usual looseness which crops up in these subjects.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[Pedant Alert]
In neither of these uses do you mean celibate: you mean sexually continent. Celibate means unmarried - from the Latin caelebs, unmarried.
quote:I find the timing of this very odd. Perhaps I am just cynical.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
It is being reported that Cardinal Keith O'Brien suggested it would be a good time for the Catholic church to look again at the discipline of celibacy for priests of the Roman rite. Is this opinion widely shared by senior Catholics or is he unusual in this idea ? If it did happen that a new pope shared his opinion, what would be the mechanism for the church to reconsider the issue ?
quote:Probably the typo of the year, HenryT. Marriage akin to a state of martial law.
Originally posted by HenryT:
... martial status.
quote:I don't see that as any more of a problem than any other job where he would go to work every day, and Leviticus doesn't apply to Christian priests/presbyters/elders.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Isn't the reason for the rule, that if you want all priest to celebrate the Mass/Liturgy/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread Service every day, in stead of just on Sundays and special holy days, Lev 15:16-18 makes priesthood incompatible with the normal rhythms of married life?
quote:I presume the libel lawyers at The Observer and the BBC have considered that carefully. That is whyI worded my post as I did.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This seems a good point to post a reminder to Shipmates to remember Commandment 7 re libel.
B62, Purg Host
quote:Most of *Leon*'s questions can be addressed by observing how the Orthies, at least in North America, handle this. They have a mix of ordinands in their mid-twenties, some married and some single, then a cohort in their thirties (usually because they were converts who needed seasoning, or they were students who had to work for a few years to raise the money for their training), then another post-retirement/2d career batch, a mix of married, widower and celibate.
Originally posted by *Leon*:
If, hypothetically, they were to allow roman catholic priests to be married, I was wondering how well the 'you can be married before you're ordained but you can't marry' rule would work. It would seem quite obvious to apply that rule, since it's what happens in the eastern catholic rites, and also what happens for perpetual deacons in the roman rite. It also makes a lot of sense in a culture where most men typically get married before the age at which people typically get ordained. We were such a culture a fairly short time ago, but we're not now.
If they want to preserve the current situation where men train for ordination quite young, they'd need to allow priests to marry after ordination. If they apply the obvious rule, there'll be a bunch of men offering themselves for ordination after their children have gone to university (because they'll wait till they've got married. Then hang on for a suitable career break. Then wait till the children have left). They'd make great priests, but that might not be the expected outcome. It also costs a fortune if you give them the same amount of training as the 20somethings get.
quote:Quite right. No slur intended re your post.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:I presume the libel lawyers at The Observer and the BBC have considered that carefully. That is why I worded my post as I did.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This seems a good point to post a reminder to Shipmates to remember Commandment 7 re libel.
B62, Purg Host
quote:Neither of these are unknown in the CofE, even though some vicar's wives may advise their daughters 'marry anyone, anyone, else, but not another vicar'.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
... Note that, like Anglicans, the Orthodox feature a number of clerical dynasties, where sons follow in the family trade. There is also a phenomenon of dating with seriousness among ordinands, so that they do not delay ordination too long while they go about getting married. It's not been unknown for a presbytera to set up her daughter with an eligible ordinand.
quote:I even know of one such attempt within the Ordinariate.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Neither of these are unknown in the CofE...
quote:I belive that in Russia at one point it was the practice for the daughter (or at least one of them) of a priest to marry a priest (well... you know, someone who then became a priest)... and he (not the priests own son) would inherit the parish. I do know several such daughters here in the US.. you'd think they would want to avoid their mother's lives, but no, they embraced it. the sons on the other hand got as far away as they could.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Neither of these are unknown in the CofE, even though some vicar's wives may advise their daughters 'marry anyone, anyone, else, but not another vicar'.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
... Note that, like Anglicans, the Orthodox feature a number of clerical dynasties, where sons follow in the family trade. There is also a phenomenon of dating with seriousness among ordinands, so that they do not delay ordination too long while they go about getting married. It's not been unknown for a presbytera to set up her daughter with an eligible ordinand.
I know of a vicar for whom if you go back up his paternal line, only one generation was not ordained since the reign of Queen Anne at the beginning of the C18.
quote:Not anytime soon - my bold - isn't that what was said about the election of a black President of the USA? Change can come like a tsunami, unexpectedly and overwhelmingly. In the meantime, I voted with my feet.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:...
Originally posted by Zach82:
Progress has been made, but not towards their recognition of our orders, which in my mind is an utterly essential step to reunion. They thought our orders invalid before, and they think our order just as invalid now. So I don't feel too bad for their offended sensibilities.
Ultimately you're correct in that it's not likely to happen any time soon; but I do hold out the hope that the church will be re-united on earth at some point in the future.
quote:I suppose my real puzzlement is revealed by this comment. St Paul put it this way (1 Cor 7)
Originally posted by IngoB:
The current Western discipline basically means that the Church finds it easier to impose continence on single than on married men. (Also, if you wish, the Church finds it easier this way to deal with their incontinence...)
quote:(Note. "with passion" is implied, not a literal translation)
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
quote:I've never thought of the requirement for celibacy as proof of *suitability* but rather as proof of *availability*. That is to say, I thought the RCC saw marriage and ordination as requiring equal, and potentially competing, levels of intimacy.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But seriously, folks ...
Why is celibacy still thought to be a better test of suitability for the priesthood than the evidence that a man is an exemplary husband and father?
quote:I've sometimes wondered whether Paul might actually have meant burn 'in hell' rather than 'with passion'. I.e. unless you really are a person who can be a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, you haven't much hope unless you do marry.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
quote:I would be quite the reverse - I would be much more likely to confess to a married man because I would know that he understood the right use of the sexual impulse in the real world.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:I've never thought of the requirement for celibacy as proof of *suitability* but rather as proof of *availability*. That is to say, I thought the RCC saw marriage and ordination as requiring equal, and potentially competing, levels of intimacy.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But seriously, folks ...
Why is celibacy still thought to be a better test of suitability for the priesthood than the evidence that a man is an exemplary husband and father?
I do not think it can be reasonable - humane, even - to expect a man with a wife and children to be bound by the seal of the confessional, for example. If my parish priest were married, I would not confess to him.
quote:Well, what that does is render 1 Timothy 3 nonsensical, since it talks about the suitability of a married man who demonstrates good character and parenting. Whatever takes one may have on hierarchy, it's clear that "elder" means one who exercises pastoral oversight within and behalf of the church.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:I've never thought of the requirement for celibacy as proof of *suitability* but rather as proof of *availability*. That is to say, I thought the RCC saw marriage and ordination as requiring equal, and potentially competing, levels of intimacy.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But seriously, folks ...
Why is celibacy still thought to be a better test of suitability for the priesthood than the evidence that a man is an exemplary husband and father?
quote:Many of us (including me) have lived with the formal requirement to keep confidential information obtained through our vocation. Some of that was of a highly personal nature. My wife faced similar challenges because of her long term pastoral support roles.
I do not think it can be reasonable - humane, even - to expect a man with a wife and children to be bound by the seal of the confessional, for example.
quote:Why should you think that a supportive wife would press him to reveal information when his office barred him from doing so? I suppose there might be a risk, but is it really any more than if the priest had a close friend?
If my parish priest were married, I would not confess to him.
quote:Any understanding of the role of a modern Catholic priest that doesn’t come straight from scripture is nonsensical?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, what that does is render 1 Timothy 3 nonsensical, since it talks about the suitability of a married man who demonstrates good character and parenting. Whatever takes one may have on hierarchy, it's clear that "elder" means one who exercises pastoral oversight within and behalf of the church.
quote:I have to keep information I learn at work confidential. However I’m not likely to be in a scenario where one of my clients tells me that he is - say – harming my child, and I would still be expected to keep that confidential.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Many of us (including me) have lived with the formal requirement to keep confidential information obtained through our vocation. Some of that was of a highly personal nature. My wife faced similar challenges because of her long term pastoral support roles.
Given our responsibilities, we each gave the other both the freedom to keep a secret, to keep it secret that we had a secret, and to share with one another if we were carrying a burden which was hard to bear. We each respected the fact that we did not have a right to know information given to the other in confidence. We found each other's prayers and support very helpful at those times, even if we did not really know what was going on. We learned not to ask probing questions.
quote:It’s the children more than the wife, really, but even in the case of the wife, marriage is a much closer relationship than friendship. I'd find it quite difficult to have to socialise with my psychiatrist's wife too.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Why should you think that a supportive wife would press him to reveal information when his office barred him from doing so? I suppose there might be a risk, but is it really any more than if the priest had a close friend?
quote:Not of itself, no. Developed doctrines in general show roots in Tradition, and of course in the Catholic view, Tradition very much encompasses scripture.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:Any understanding of the role of a modern Catholic priest that doesn’t come straight from scripture is nonsensical?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, what that does is render 1 Timothy 3 nonsensical, since it talks about the suitability of a married man who demonstrates good character and parenting. Whatever takes one may have on hierarchy, it's clear that "elder" means one who exercises pastoral oversight within and behalf of the church.
quote:I see what you're driving at and yes, I agree, if there is nothing wrong with living out one's sexuality in the way the Church traditionally recommends (marriage), why should that be a bar to holy orders?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Not of itself, no. Developed doctrines in general show roots in Tradition, and of course in the Catholic view, Tradition very much encompasses scripture.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:Any understanding of the role of a modern Catholic priest that doesn’t come straight from scripture is nonsensical?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, what that does is render 1 Timothy 3 nonsensical, since it talks about the suitability of a married man who demonstrates good character and parenting. Whatever takes one may have on hierarchy, it's clear that "elder" means one who exercises pastoral oversight within and behalf of the church.
If you've followed my line of argument, even if it was a general part of that Tradition that married men who became priests were then expected to abstain from sexual relations with their wives, the wider experiences of the marriage were seen as an advantageous test of the "holiness, blamelessness, virtue" of any prospective priest.
In short, the married state was not in itself seen as a bar to holiness. The issue was the relationship between "holiness, blamelessness and virtue" and the active expression of human sexuality.
What I'm challenging is that aspect of the Tradition; the notion that sexual relations within a marriage somehow continue to speak against suitability for a priestly role. I guess I can understand the history of that view (or at least have some inkling about how such a view might emerge, but it seems to me to be an incorrect belief of the creation-ordained nature of human sexuality. Human sexuality was a created good. That created goodness gets messed up by human sinfulness. But in the redeemed community, surely we should be arguing that the initial, intrinsic, goodness of human sexuality can be restored. And in particular, is no bar in itself to holiness.
If you see that, where does that leave the argument in favour of a celibate, unmarried priesthood. What current purpose does that actually serve?
quote:If you can't see how it works, have you considered looking at examples? Or are Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, and Anglican clergy horribly failing to provide adequate pastoral care? There don't seem to be emotional/financial/logistical issues for them.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
It's just that when I come at the argument from a completely different angle - one of emotional and financial/logistical practicality, I can't see how it works.
quote:I didn't say horribly failing. It's my view that the Catholic model works better.
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:If you can't see how it works, have you considered looking at examples? Or are Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, and Anglican clergy horribly failing to provide adequate pastoral care? There don't seem to be emotional/financial/logistical issues for them.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
It's just that when I come at the argument from a completely different angle - one of emotional and financial/logistical practicality, I can't see how it works.
quote:In what way? It reads like you're trying to justify the existing position. It's certainly the case from my understanding that most Anglican parishes actively prefer Priests who are married and particularly those with young children.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I didn't say horribly failing. It's my view that the Catholic model works better.
quote:My discomfort is not to do with fear that they would share confidences, but whether it is ever appropriate to share intimacy with someone else's spouse. And yes, for me, that has affected the degree to which I have taken Anglican clergy - even when most loved and esteemed as ministers - into my confidence.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It has never crossed my mind when talking to a Priest or Minister of any denomination, whether married or unmarried, that they would even breach any ordinary confidence, never mind the confessional.
It's actually pretty insulting to celibate Priests to imply that the only reason they don't treat what they here in confession as bits of titilating gossip is because they don't share a bed with someone.
quote:Oh brother. Every priest I have ever known will tell you how profoundly boring and ordinary intimacy issues are.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
My discomfort is not to do with fear that they would share confidences, but whether it is ever appropriate to share intimacy with someone else's spouse. And yes, for me, that has affected the degree to which I have taken Anglican clergy - even when most loved and esteemed as ministers - into my confidence.
quote:You beat me to it. I was just about to ask that. And doctors? And lawyers? And Samaritans?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Do you think therapists should be celibate too ?
quote:A large number, probably a majority, of spiritual directors in the Catholic and Anglican churches are lay people, many of them married. Why should that be perceived as a problem?
Originally posted by Chorister:
In the Anglican church, pastoral care is often not carried out by priests these days (too many churches to look after), but by ordinary members of the congregation (who may, or may not, have been on special training courses). A large number of these are married, so I can't see why priests need to have special arrangements. But perhaps pastoral care is arranged differently in RC churches?
quote:No but, as I've said above about my psychiatrist, I wouldn't go to one who was a part of my local community and social circle, because I wouldn't want to have to socialise with them and their family.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Do you think therapists should be celibate too ?
quote:You consult Samaritans on an anonymous basis.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:You beat me to it. I was just about to ask that. And doctors? And lawyers? And Samaritans?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Do you think therapists should be celibate too ?
quote:I think you're misunderstanding my meaning. I don't mean the subject of the discussion. I mean that I don't want to have a relationship that involves secrecy with someone else's spouse.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Oh brother. Every priest I have ever known will tell you how profoundly boring and ordinary intimacy issues are.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
My discomfort is not to do with fear that they would share confidences, but whether it is ever appropriate to share intimacy with someone else's spouse. And yes, for me, that has affected the degree to which I have taken Anglican clergy - even when most loved and esteemed as ministers - into my confidence.
quote:Well yes, but isn't the problem here going to be socialising with the priest ? Which would happen regardless of whether they had a spouse or not.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:No but, as I've said above about my psychiatrist, I wouldn't go to one who was a part of my local community and social circle, because I wouldn't want to have to socialise with them and their family.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Do you think therapists should be celibate too ?
quote:Kind of my thought above... If they aren't, what good are they?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I had thought that priests were not meant to make friends with the congregation anyway though.
quote:I used to play bridge at the same club as my GP. We were never best buddies, but would pass the time of day quite happily. I didn't have any great medical secrets, but I don't think it would have bothered me if I did.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I don't invite people who provide me with medical treatment into my social circle/community.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by PeteC:
I am friendly (and friends with) many priests. That friendliness stops the minute they put on a stole to exercise their priestly function, be it communion outside of church, confession, blessing of the sick or whatever.
When that exercise of their function is over, normal, social discourse resumes.
quote:I grew up in quite a small town. When I was 18 one of my close friends - an on-and-off boyfriend - died in a car accident. I grieved, understandably, and then I found I couldn't pick myself up. I was preparing for A-levels and university at the same time which didn't help. I went to my GP and I told him this, I wept.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:I used to play bridge at the same club as my GP. We were never best buddies, but would pass the time of day quite happily. I didn't have any great medical secrets, but I don't think it would have bothered me if I did.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I don't invite people who provide me with medical treatment into my social circle/community.
You must live in a big city if you can compartmentalize your life that way. When I was growing up, my next door neighbour was a teacher at my school, as were the parents of three of my closest friends. I used to run into another teacher at a church group I went to for a while. My first proper holiday job was as a minion in a local accountant's office, where I found myself checking the accounts of the man who ran the corner shop, and whose son was in my maths set.
Speaking out of turn didn't occur to anybody.
On the other hand, friends who are teachers tell me that they purposely bought a house one town away from their school because they didn't want to meet pupils outside school.
Maybe it's me that's odd.
quote:I think I agree with Doublethink on this. Some of the criticisms of the NC movement in the Catholic Church have been around the fact that they encourage public disclosure in front of lay-people/the community. I would agree with these criticisms.
Originally posted by Garasu:
But precisely: saying it to the community might be valuable?
(And, again, I shudder at the thought...)
quote:If marriage does effect an actual change in a man and a woman - the two becoming one flesh, however we understand that - how then can the man pursue a priestly vocation which is not shared by his wife? I appreciate though that again, this is coming from the Catholic perspective of seeing priesthood as more than a profession.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
On the main issue of the thread, I still feel my challenge to the Traditional understanding "from outside" has force. The history of the development of Tradition and doctrine may be understandable, but of itself that doesn't make the understanding correct. The Tradition is testable; it can be weighed. The arguments against it, particularly those which weigh the link between celibacy and personal holiness, seem to me to be very convincing. But then, I haven't lived within Catholicism.
quote:Well, she does, in many ways. As described elsewhere in this thread, among the Orthodox the role of the priests wife is very significant. Although she can not perform the liturgical and sacramental role, she most certainly does share the ministerial role. No, it's clearly not identical, but why should it be? Spouses rarely have identical roles within a marriage.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:]If marriage does effect an actual change in a man and a woman - the two becoming one flesh, however we understand that - how then can the man pursue a priestly vocation which is not shared by his wife? I appreciate though that again, this is coming from the Catholic perspective of seeing priesthood as more than a profession. [/QB]
quote:I would answer yes. Both marriage and celibacy are not without difficulties but neither are impossible.
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
"Is it even possible to live a celibate life?" asks this article on the BBC News website.
It's an interesting question - what do you think?
quote:Not just about cold baths and hair shirts.
Sublimation:
(Psychoanalysis) (in Freudian psychology) the diversion of psychic energy derived from sexual impulses into nonsexual activity, especially of a creative nature.
quote:Good luck with that!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In general, I think Christian sexual ethics are in need of a spring clean.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
You say that because you are a Traditionalist and I say it because I am a Reformer! quote:Would I be right in interpreting that as meaning no more than a veiled confession to having used methods of family planning that involve more than just the rhythm method?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My understanding of chastity in Catholicism is that either the celibate state or the married state are regarded as chaste, if lived out in accordance with the church's teaching. By that standard, I haven't been chaste either. But I have been faithful to the promises we made to "forsake all others". And I'm sure we've had God's help all along the way in keeping the promises we made.
Cheeky soul! Wondered if someone would ask.![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:As far as I can tell, this can't be a doctrinal issue for the Catholic Church. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but it's precisely because there are married priests in the Eastern Catholic churches (and now within the Latin Church, with Anglican Ordinariate priests) that the Church has—implicitly if not explicitly—answered your question, either by saying that the wife can share in that priestly vocation in her particular way, or that the two cleaving together and becoming one flesh does not preclude his living out his priestly vocation.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
If marriage does effect an actual change in a man and a woman - the two becoming one flesh, however we understand that - how then can the man pursue a priestly vocation which is not shared by his wife? I appreciate though that again, this is coming from the Catholic perspective of seeing priesthood as more than a profession.
quote:It isn't. Any Catholic will tell you it is not a doctrine, but a discipline to which exceptions are often made. That is precise the reason that there can actually be a debate about it, weighing the benefits and the implications of the discipline, which would be precluded were it a doctrinal matter.
As far as I can tell, this can't be a doctrinal issue for the Catholic Church.
quote:There were married priests in the Latin Church long before the Ordinariates. The first in the modern era (IIRC) were in the 1940s under Pius XII - Lutherans who converted.
Originally posted by Bostonman:
As far as I can tell, this can't be a doctrinal issue for the Catholic Church. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but it's precisely because there are married priests in the Eastern Catholic churches (and now within the Latin Church, with Anglican Ordinariate priests) ...
quote:It was the 1950s. Four married former Lutheran pastors were ordained: Rudolf Goethe in 1951, Eugen Scheytt and Otto Melchers in 1952, and Martin Giebner in 1953.
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
quote:There were married priests in the Latin Church long before the Ordinariates. The first in the modern era (IIRC) were in the 1940s under Pius XII - Lutherans who converted.
Originally posted by Bostonman:
As far as I can tell, this can't be a doctrinal issue for the Catholic Church. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but it's precisely because there are married priests in the Eastern Catholic churches (and now within the Latin Church, with Anglican Ordinariate priests) ...
quote:No, Germany.
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that they functioned as priests in Denmark.
