|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Clerical Celibacy
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chrysalis:
quote:
I don't expect my priests to be any more different than me except having had them commit more to a life with Christ and some deeper theological/counselling training.
Many people have committed more to a life with Christ that me, they are not all priests.
Others have had more theological training or be gifted with and/or qualified in counselling. Some priests have lousy counselling skills - they can't all be good at everything.
I am not saying that priests do not have these things, it just seems strange to expect them from someone simply because they have been ordained and celibate and not to look for them in any fellow Christian, or even may I suggest in a non Christian.
Maybe I'm just too much of a congregationalist for my own good.
To be sure, a lot of priests don't go in for counselling, and aren't very good at it. Indeed, the best RC counsellor (or even pratcitioner) that I know isn't ordained. But what, I may ask, do you then look for in a priest/minister? I expect them from priests because they've trained extensively in theology, and generally have to train in counselling at some point.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
GoAnneGo wrote: Any basic (or even beyond basic) search will show you that the rate of molestation in the RCC church has been higher (at least that's been brought to anyone's attention) than in any other church/religion/organized group.
Not so, according to studies reported by Penn State Professor Philip Jenkins (a non-Catholic, by the way) and the annual survey by Christian Ministry Resources, a tax/law/insurance think thank that studies legal issues facing churches. The CMR study suggests that sex abuse occurs at roughly the same rate across all denominations and that clergy aren't the major offenders. According to the CMR's 1999 data, 42% of alleged child sex abusers are volunteers. About 25% were paid staff members (a figure lumping together ordained clergy, youth ministers, music ministers, etc.). And another 25% appear to be violent or predatory children abusing younger kids.
The priest sex abuse scandal is abhorrent and the Roman Catholic Church's response to it has been an abomination. But it doesn't appear to be a problem that is disproportionately Catholic.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Question: is there any possibility that the ordained RC priests who were laicised in order to marry could return to active ministry?
Whilst I think that we might well see a move in my lifetime (I'm not quite 40) to the Eastern discipline of allowing married men to be ordained to the priesthood, I think it unlikely that priests would be allowed to marry. I suspect that there isn't a snow ball's chance in Hell of laicised priests being allowed to come back into active ministry (broken promises and all that sort of thing).
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
Any basic (or even beyond basic) search will show you that the rate of molestation in the RCC church has been higher (at least that's been brought to anyone's attention) than in any other church/religion/organized group. Their hypocracy is certainly not alone - take a look at the "we don't admit gay people" Boy Scouts, whose leader just got arrested on child porn charges. But do you or anyone else have any proof that there are such molestation scandals going on in other churches? When there's two alone in my paper today, they're both RCC, and there aren't any others of other religions, that starts to indicate that just maybe there's a problem. What's so offensive about citing widely reported stories? Or maybe I should change my allegation to this:
THE RCC HAS A MUCH HIGHER RATE OF PAYOUT AND ARRESTS OF ITS PRIESTS FOR PEDOPHILIA THAN ANY OTHER CURRENT RELIGION. Does that make you feel better?
There is a saying about "common sense" -- that it is not common and rarely makes sense. That came to mind when you suggested, essentially, that the evidence is so wide and well known that it would be beneath you to cite it or even suggest where it might be found.
Repeatedly making an allegation without providing any back-up evidence is worthless logically and barren intellectually.
Can you not not get it through your head that nobody -- NOBODY -- is saying there are not RC pederasts and abuserss, and nobody -- NOBODY -- is trying to say that abuse is not offensive.
But to say, without providing a shred of evidence, that there are more abusers in the RC church than in others, and to refuse point blank to provide any evidence to back up your allegations suggests that YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. And that you are not seriously engaging with the discussion. And that you should probably fill your spare time in on some other thread.
John
Ahem, since apparently John doens't read the news:
In the Boston (USA) diocese:
$80million for 500 civil suits against RCC clergy.
Dallas (USA): $151 million, 15 more charges.
Ireland: 20 RCC priests, brothers and nuns convicted of molestation.
Hong Kong: seven RC priests accused of child abuse
Austria, Australia, Malta, France, Poland, South Africa, Poland, Mexico: Summaries and links to full stories found here. Including how the Cardinal for Vienna had to step down for being a pedophile. But it doesn't mention how the man in charge of training new priests in Austria had to step down for being a child pornographer and pedophile.
There's my evidence on the RCC, all of which you seem to have missed. If you have evidence that other churches are just as bad or worse, let's hear it. But I daresay you don't have any.
[ 06. April 2005, 20:44: Message edited by: Go Anne Go ]
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
And of course: The Boston Globe's Spotlight Report.
Presleyterian - your report cites a lot of nonministerial people. As for clergy themselves, is there more or less in the RCC church than in other religions? It is certainly better publicized there.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Question: is there any possibility that the ordained RC priests who were laicised in order to marry could return to active ministry?
Whilst I think that we might well see a move in my lifetime (I'm not quite 40) to the Eastern discipline of allowing married men to be ordained to the priesthood, I think it unlikely that priests would be allowed to marry. I suspect that there isn't a snow ball's chance in Hell of laicised priests being allowed to come back into active ministry (broken promises and all that sort of thing).
What I don't understand is that they'll let married Episcopal priests become RCC priests and stay married, but they won't let RCC priests who leave to marry come back. Somehow this doesn't add up to me. Your broken promise seems to make sense as an explanation, but since the RCC also allows married deaconates, somewhere this seems disproportionate punishment.
[fixed code]
[ 07. April 2005, 01:05: Message edited by: RuthW ]
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
there are stories and stories and national scandals in Ireland, in the USA, in Australia on RCC priests. Compared to any other stories about molestation in other churches put together I've heard (and have yet to see anyone else offer) of anything like the level of molestation going on in the RCC church. Any basic (or even beyond basic) search will show you that the rate of molestation in the RCC church has been higher (at least that's been brought to anyone's attention) than in any other church/religion/organized group. THE RCC HAS A MUCH HIGHER RATE OF PAYOUT AND ARRESTS OF ITS PRIESTS FOR PEDOPHILIA THAN ANY OTHER CURRENT RELIGION.
Without some hard facts and figures, I must dismiss this as nothing but urban myth. The people who would know best, of course, are insurance companies and their actuaries. If the rate of payout is higher for the RCC, then the premiums would soon be higher. To my knowledge (based on statements from expert guests on radio and TV programs) they are not. Premiums are exactly the same across the denominational spectrum. But then, I don't have the figures ready to hand, either.
Allegations against Roman Catholic clergy make the hottest press for several reasons. Everyone has heard of The Roman Catholic Church. Few have heard of Main Street Christian. The division between clergy (especially being celibate) and laity is more clear-cut. And a diocese contains hundreds of employees, whereas a local chapel has only a few. But none of this has nothing to do with the actual rate of occurrence of the problem.
I would regret the loss of clerical celibacy in the RCC for purely cultural and emotional reasons. Set against the alleged misogyny resulting from the status quo (although Leon Podles in The Church Impotent quite ably denies that it has resulted) we have the monochromatic, self-congratulating bourgeoisie of many protestant congregations, in which anyone who isn't married with 2.4 kids is marginalized. The Catholic Church is more inclusive in theory, and probably always in practice as well. When the western world is full of occupations in which married men enjoy an advantage, can't there be one line of work partial to bachelors? ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
But if there aren't enough new candidates to fill the ranks, something will need to change. The clergy shortage is critical and worsening. If I were RC, I would rather see a married priest than some of the alternatives, such as lay celebration.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
As for clergy themselves, is there more or less in the RCC church than in other religions? It is certainly better publicized there.
The thing is, GAG, in a one-off congregational-type church, there are no multi-million dollar lawsuits involving a dozen or more clergy, because the church doesn't have millions of dollars, and it only has one pastor. So those cases don't make the news.
I had a good friend in college who had been molested, as a little girl, by their independent fundamentalist minister. When parents got suspicious, and were going to have a congregational meeting to decide what to do about it, he left town. And that was that. If, 20 years later, one of his victims wanted to find him and press charges, how could they? And if they wanted to sue, who would they sue?
I think that is the reason for the widespread perception that the RCC has a bigger problem with pedophile clergy than do other churches, and not because RCC clergy are more likely to be abusive than any other clergy.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
What I don't understand is that they'll let married Episcopal priests become RCC priests and stay married, but they won't let RCC priests who leave to marry come back. Somehow this doesn't add up to me. Your broken promise seems to make sense as an explanation, but since the RCC also allows married deaconates, somewhere this seems disproportionate punishment.
The issue of former anglicans is best answered by looking at what was done as (i) naked opportunism (Basil Hume seems to have believed it would cause a flood); and (ii) a controlled experiment.
The point about permanent deacons is that when the idea was reintroduced it was explicitly done on the basis of married men being allowed. Remember, however, that a permanent deacon is not permitted to marry. This means that if a married deacon is widowed, it's celibacy from then on in.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
GoAnneGo wrote: Presleyterian - your report cites a lot of nonministerial people. As for clergy themselves, is there more or less in the RCC church than in other religions? It is certainly better publicized there.
Certainly a valid question, but one that raises an apples-to-oranges problem because so many churches don't have ordained ministers. Is Skip the Worship Leader at the Community Praise 'n' Family Fun Center a member of the clergy? Who knows. That's why CMR -- concerned as it is with coverage issues -- makes the paid employee vs. volunteer distinction.
I don't think John Holding or anyone else is denying the the Roman Catholic Church has a terrible problem. No anecdotal links were necessary to establish that. But the question remains whether the Catholic Church has a problem disproportionately more serious than other denominations. And I have yet to see data that establishes that.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
This may sound intentionally naive, but I swear to you this is a heart felt question -
are there really churches without ordained clergy?????? I've just never heard of this phenomonon, except for the Quakers/Society of Friends, where no one is in charge, you just speak as the Spirit moves you.
All other denoms in my experience have some kind of clergy, ordained by that church. Requirements vary.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
This may sound intentionally naive, but I swear to you this is a heart felt question -
are there really churches without ordained clergy?????? I've just never heard of this phenomonon, except for the Quakers/Society of Friends, where no one is in charge, you just speak as the Spirit moves you.
All other denoms in my experience have some kind of clergy, ordained by that church. Requirements vary.
The Brethren,. Upon which we had a long thread recently, but I can't find it.
It also depends on what you mean by "ordained". If you simply mean "set apart" I agree with you, if you actually mean "ordained" then most Free Evangelical churches don't have "clergy".
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
As for clergy themselves, is there more or less in the RCC church than in other religions? It is certainly better publicized there.
The thing is, GAG, in a one-off congregational-type church, there are no multi-million dollar lawsuits involving a dozen or more clergy, because the church doesn't have millions of dollars, and it only has one pastor. So those cases don't make the news.
I had a good friend in college who had been molested, as a little girl, by their independent fundamentalist minister. When parents got suspicious, and were going to have a congregational meeting to decide what to do about it, he left town. And that was that. If, 20 years later, one of his victims wanted to find him and press charges, how could they? And if they wanted to sue, who would they sue?
I think that is the reason for the widespread perception that the RCC has a bigger problem with pedophile clergy than do other churches, and not because RCC clergy are more likely to be abusive than any other clergy.
josephine,
First off, there are ways this guy could be found, PM me if you want access to resources (and no I don't mean guys who break kneecaps as a primary source of income)for your friend. The 20 years on thing then becomes an issue of statutes of limitations.
I'm not saying abuse doesn't or hasn't happened in other churches, but the issue in the Catholic church is so globally widespread, I don't know anything else that can compare. It could well be that it is higher in the RCC because there are more RCC priests than in other religions, but it isn't just million dollar settlements that make the news, it is arrests even without civil litigation.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
That's more or less the deal in Orthodoxy, too, Trisagion. A man has to make up his mind before he's ordained to the diaconate, and he (and his wife too) are permitted to marry only that one time. If either wife or priest dies, the one left behind (ooooohhhhh) may not remarry.
Bishops must always be celibate. We used to get our bishops from monasteries (easiest place to find somebody who could read and write, but that's another thread).
Leetle M.
Interested in seeing how the controlled experiment turns out over a longer period of time. Some parishes are not able to afford to support married clergy with families, and in the Orthodox Church, many married clergy have to work at secular jobs because their parishes cannot provide a salary sufficient to feed a family, even with "car allowance", "Health Insurance", "Pension plan", and "Free Housing" (drafty rectory with faulty plumbing, bad drains and leaky roof). I'd say it won't do much good here in Philadelphia, where all the old "changing neighborhood" parishes are going under because the congos can't afford to keep up cathedral-sized churches "built on the pennies of Irish washerwomen". The problem is that the grandchildren of the washerwomen live in the suburbs and make big salaries, so they start new parishes with hideous architecture out in the 'burbs and forget the grand old buildings with the exquisite stained glass...sigh. Abject apologies--that too is another thread, but it's too depressing to start another thread on the high cost of married clergy.
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
That's more or less the deal in Orthodoxy, too, Trisagion. A man has to make up his mind before he's ordained to the diaconate, and he (and his wife too) are permitted to marry only that one time. If either wife or priest dies, the one left behind (ooooohhhhh) may not remarry.
I just can't understand that. What is the theological or other justification for denying the sacrament of matrimony to priests or deacons, if there is no objection per se to married priests or deacons? It's clearly a long tradition (with the Orthodox at least) so somebody must have thought it out.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Angloid muses:
quote:
I just can't understand that. What is the theological or other justification for denying the sacrament of matrimony to priests or deacons, if there is no objection per se to married priests or deacons? It's clearly a long tradition (with the Orthodox at least) so somebody must have thought it out.
I should have explained, Angloid, that the vocation to marriage and family, if there is such a vocation for a man, comes prior to the vocation of priesthood. As the Bible says, "A Bishop (priest or deacon in the Orthodox case) must be the husband of one wife." That means, if you want to be a deacon or priest and you decide to get married, you need to get married before you are ordained, and you must stick with that one wife. When she dies, you are more or less, Monk-priest Paphnutios or whatever they name you at your ordination.
It is by no means a "perfect system", obviously. Some priests get tired of their wives and are "stuck" with them. Some wives get tired of having to work outside the home to help support their families, or they get tired of parish nitwits who "inspect" their housekeeping in said drafty rectory, or they just get burned out and fed up generally, and they want to leave their priest-husbands. I am Orthodox, but I can certainly see why it's easier all-round to have a celibate clergy. You would see little piggies flying in the sky before I would think of marrying any man who wanted to be a deacon or priest in the Orthodox Church.
Then again, you'd see pigs fly before I'd marry anybody, but that's another thread.
Leetle M.
Professional Old Maid and Proud of It
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It is widely assumed that an apparently celibate man must be at least one of gay, perverted (in those cultures where that is distinguished from gay), a pathetic loser, or secretly having it off on the side somewhere. Those ideas may be wrong but they are undeniably the prejudices of the majority in our society, and always have been. Which is why the Roman Catholic hierarchy in the USA and Canada is imploding right now. There is (probably) no real evidence that celibate RC priests are any more likely to be sex criminals than married Protestant ministers, but suspicion of them - mainly due to their celibacy and their celebration of virginity - is so strong that millions assume they are.
That is plainly obvious. Read any tabloid newspaper. Talk to people in any ordinary pub. Most people in our society assume that celibacy isn't an option for a normal man or woman and that someone who practices it must be in some way inadequare. And that those who say they prectice it very often - perhaps even usually - fail to sustain it.
For me, that is nearly an argument in favour of celibacy! It is looked on as strange to choose not abstain from sex -- somehow you're not a 'proper person' if you're not having sex. I think that's wrong. Maybe previous ages have over glorified virginity but these days we seem to have turned that on its head -- virginity is almost seen as something to be despised in our culture today. I think that's wrong and the example of celibates (priests, monks, nuns) can challenge that.
I'm not sure what I think about compulsory clerical celibacy, but I certainly wouldn't want to see no celibate clergy. The call to celibacy is a vocation and I think an important one, perhaps especially because it is so despised in our culture.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
What I really can't get my head around for the Orthodox is:
married priest, ok.
married bishop, not ok.
Why the distinction?
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Because the bishops were already monks, recruited from monasteries. Recruited is a sweet word--sometimes, in the days of persecution such as the Turkish occupation, the monks who were to be bishops were more or less kidnapped.... but that's not important right now.
There's a footnote to this that I'd have added if I were fast enough with that edit button. You remember St. Peter, how his mother-in-law was healed by Christ and was able to get up and serve food to the disciples? It is generally thought that by the time St. Peter became a disciple, his wife must have been dead. Thus, he was eligible to be a bishop. I meant to say in my post to Angloid that the "silver lining" (if you can call it that!) for a widower-priest is that he then is eligible to be an Orthodox bishop.
Most just retire, though.
Hope this helps. If it doesn't, over to you, Fr. Gregory!
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
But that's a history thing, not a theological thing. Surely in the orthodox tradition there must be a theological justification?
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Well, Anne, I suppose marriage/family vocation being prior to priestly vocation falls under the category of "Natural Law"--marriage, see, is the "natural" outcome for most folks, long before they think of being priests. For further info on "Natural Law", I defer to the excellent canonist Trisagion.
It's the best we can do, see. We try to do what God wants, and then if He wants more, we try to do that too. Pray for the clergy: mileage varies.
Leetle M.
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fisher
Shipmate
# 9080
|
Posted
Quick point to GAG, without wanting to flog a dead horse. There's a big gap between the following statements:
- There is a higher rate of molestation amongst celibate than non-celibate clergy.
- There is currently a higher rate of successful prosecution against RC clergy than those of other denominations.
For example,:
- The manifestly inadequate mechanisms used previously by the RC Church to deal with abusers probably led to more cases of abuse happening for each abusive priest than in other denominations.
- The hushing up of the issue over many years has led to an effect akin to the bursting of a dam. Very few cases were recorded before the 90s. The first batch of stories that came out justifiably gained a great deal of coverage. Suddenly, instances that had been silenced for many years all came to court over a short period. This is still happening.
Child abuse has been, and is, a grave problem in parts of the RCC. But that doesn't mean celibacy is the problem.
--------------------
"Down, down, presumptuous human reason!" But somehow they found out I was not a real bishop at all G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 1327 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
I don't think celibacy is the problem as much as the screenign process is the problem. The reasons why some people choose celibacy are noble and a true calling. Others just want to make sure they don't act on their urges. I said all this before.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fisher
Shipmate
# 9080
|
Posted
A few points in favour of celibacy:
- It frees priests from conflicting interests. If they're called to minister in a dangerous part of the world, they don't have the legitimate worry of their family's safety.
- It marks priesthood out very clearly as being completely different from any other career. It requires a massive commitment.
- It leaves priests with a complete dedication to the church - the single dominant thing in their life.
Of course the latter two can often be true of married clergy as well. It's also worth noting that these are as much about being outside a family as they are about abstaining from sex.
Ken, I largely agree with you about people's perception. However, that's tied to a male-only priesthood with mandatory celibacy. I'd much sooner admit women priests than ditch celibacy. Also, your analysis leaves one loose end: how is it that a church with mandatory celibacy has become the largest religious movement in history? I'm not taking the mick; it genuinely puzzles me. If most ordinary people think Catholic priests must be weird, why hasn't Catholicism become one of the innumerable strange sects that litter history books? Answers on a postcard please!
--------------------
"Down, down, presumptuous human reason!" But somehow they found out I was not a real bishop at all G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 1327 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
I think for a long time (particularly pre-Pill/Sexual Revolution) celibacy wasn't seen as truly so weird. Much more of a calling. There was also an almost tradition of second sons, etc heading to the church, particularly since they wouldn't inherit under primogeniture.
Of course, back in those days it was much more accepted whether religiously motivated or not that you'd be a virgin pretty much til you got married. In the days of less reliable contraception, it was too easy to get caught out if you didn't.
Then the culture around the church and the world changed. Contraception and better treatments for diseases suddenly freed people up to have sex with whomever they wanted, feeling quite less risk. But the church line was still celibacy for priests, and no contraception for anyone else. But suddenly when the rest of the world is engaged in such a sexual revolution, the same line of the church caused (slowly) celibacy to seem quite weird.
Additionally, more was understood about sexuality generally as an organic emotion/ function. Women got to enjoy it too, as it were! It wasn't just something relegated to hush hush discussions, it was part of the common vernacular. So now everyone was in on the deal, and the people saw it was good and sex was good. But the celibate priests said it was bad except in very limited circumstances. Thus the perception of weirdness.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fisher
Shipmate
# 9080
|
Posted
Maybe. But, biologically, celibacy is weird and was weird even pre-60s. And Chaucer also illustrates the natural tendency to make fun of it. Sure, it looks even odder now. But there must be a good reason why it spread. Was it because populations needed to be able to find a way of keeping second sons occupied if they couldn't inherit?
--------------------
"Down, down, presumptuous human reason!" But somehow they found out I was not a real bishop at all G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 1327 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Lots of free churches dont have ordained clergy. In fact I thought only established denominations (CE RC Baptists, Methodists..) did have ordained clergy...
Many community churches, NFI, pioneer, vineyard etc wouldnt have,,,
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
Also, don't forget, one celibate priest can minister to a whole lotta peoples. So maybe they didn't need as many priests per capita as they do now with smaller parish sizes? I have no idea. But also, if I recall my Euro politic history, adoption of RCC or rejection of it was often a political thing on the part of the King. With state religion, if you feel called to God, and the state religion is Catholic, then celibacy is your thing.
Except historically, wasn't there a long while where celibacy was not quite optional but hardly enforced? Popes with kids and all that? Which is why popular legend has it that celibacy was brought in to stop sons inheriting churhc property?
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Well GAG, it goes like this:
You made the assertion. So it's up to you to prove it.
Instead you've proved something that wasn't in dispute -- that there are abusers among RC clergy. Thats news?
Now how about providing some evidence for your statement that there are more abusers among RC clergy than among clergy of any other religion or denomination.
You chose to make a comparative statement -- if you can't back it up with comparative data, it's worthless.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
GAG:
Can you cite any evidence for your assertions?
[ 07. April 2005, 05:34: Message edited by: Bonaventura ]
--------------------
So lovers of wine drink up! The Beloved has lifted his red glass. And paradise cannot be, now, far away. -Hafëz
Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Lots of free churches dont have ordained clergy. In fact I thought only established denominations (CE RC Baptists, Methodists..) did have ordained clergy...
Where are the Methodists the established church? I missed that memo.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Is it Tonga that has a Methodist King? And ... er...
Lights fuse... Stands well back...{/I]
I have read the statement that the United Methodists were the unofficial Established Church in the USA until well into the C20...
[I]Hands on ears...
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Angloid muses:
quote:
I just can't understand that. What is the theological or other justification for denying the sacrament of matrimony to priests or deacons, if there is no objection per se to married priests or deacons? It's clearly a long tradition (with the Orthodox at least) so somebody must have thought it out.
I should have explained, Angloid, that the vocation to marriage and family, if there is such a vocation for a man, comes prior to the vocation of priesthood. As the Bible says, "A Bishop (priest or deacon in the Orthodox case) must be the husband of one wife." That means, if you want to be a deacon or priest and you decide to get married, you need to get married before you are ordained.
I don't see that in the scripture at all. I read it as an instruction that if a bishop/overseer/presbyter is to be a married man he should only have one wife - as you say stick with her, no divorce. Nothing about when that wife should be married to him, or if he gets ordained that's it, his chance his up for marriage. It actually could be read as 'he who is a bishop (as in someone who is now ordained) is only permitted to marry one wife', something that would obviously have to happen after ordination.
Your explanation seems to twist it the other way to be interpreted as 'he who thinks he's going to be a bishop should get married first, before he's ordained,' which seems to be saying something a bit different.
I can't see what the problem is with re-marriage after being widowed, either, unless it's believed that death of a spouse doesn't dissolve marriage. He was the husband to his first wife, but now she is dead, they are no longer husband and wife. So in being married to a 'second' wife, he's still only married to the one wife, because the previous relationship was dissolved by death.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I can't see what the problem is with re-marriage after being widowed, either, unless it's believed that death of a spouse doesn't dissolve marriage. He was the husband to his first wife, but now she is dead, they are no longer husband and wife. So in being married to a 'second' wife, he's still only married to the one wife, because the previous relationship was dissolved by death.
Is it some kind of realised eschatology?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fisher:
Also, your analysis leaves one loose end: how is it that a church with mandatory celibacy has become the largest religious movement in history? I'm not taking the mick; it genuinely puzzles me. If most ordinary people think Catholic priests must be weird, why hasn't Catholicism become one of the innumerable strange sects that litter history books? Answers on a postcard please!
I was specifically trying to talk about northern European cultures - British, German, Scandinavian and so on. These things may be read differently in different cultural backgrounds.
The fear of sex and glorification of virginity was a characteristic of aristocratic society in the later Roman Empire. Not just Christian society - pagans & Manichees & neo-Platonists & so on did it as well. (or rather they didn't do it...)
The idea that sexual urges - or any animal motivations - are somehow irrational, uncontrollable, and morally inferior to intellectual motivations seems to go all through the writings of the period. Including many (but not all) oif the Church Fathers, as well as many non-Christians. And some of the Church Fathers wrote many nasty things about sex, reproduction, and women.
Societies construe these things differently. Maybe what seemed noble and rational to the Greeks or Romans of the early middle ages seemed rather silly to the Egyptians and Arabs and downright perverted to the British or English.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
It also depends on what you mean by "ordained". If you simply mean "set apart" I agree with you, if you actually mean "ordained" then most Free Evangelical churches don't have "clergy".
Yes, its really quite common. And lots of independent churches (Evangelical Free Churches, Pentecostals, Baptists, "New" Churches, whatever) simply don't have the resources for a full-time minister even if they wanted one.
Even if they have one or more people set aside as leaders (or in other roles), they will be people from the congreagation with no special training and no externally recognised ordination - even if there is some ceremony it is just that that congregation gives that role to that member.
A lot of these places start out as a few friends meeting in someone's house. Or end up as a tiny and elderly congregation that has inherited an overlarge tin tabernacle from their grandparent's generation. If they get bigger or richer they might find they have the money to pay someone full-time. And if they are a member of a wider connexion (many churches aren't) they might be assigned a trained person from another church to lead or help out in other ways.
Also in many churches from that sort of background the minister is seen as a teaching and preaching role, rather than a leadership one. The eldership of such places (even if they aren't called elders) might be respected members of the congreagation and the minister is someone they pay to do a job for them, and who they can dismiss if they fall out. So eldership and "priesthood" not a word they are likely to use) is separated from preaching the word & from ordination.
And yes there are such places where an ordained minister, or a visiting preacher, will preach; but another member of the congregation will lead the service or preside over Communion.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I can't see what the problem is with re-marriage after being widowed, either, unless it's believed that death of a spouse doesn't dissolve marriage. He was the husband to his first wife, but now she is dead, they are no longer husband and wife. So in being married to a 'second' wife, he's still only married to the one wife, because the previous relationship was dissolved by death.
Except that, in the Orthodox church, we don't believe that marriage is dissolved by death.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Your explanation seems to twist it the other way to be interpreted as 'he who thinks he's going to be a bishop should get married first, before he's ordained,' which seems to be saying something a bit different.
Au contraire. It's more like, "he who thinks he should get married should go ahead and get married, and if God has other plans for him, God will advise him of those plans so that he doesn't do anything to get in God's way."
The whole process is one of prayer, discernment, guidance from the Holy Spirit and from the earthly spiritual father, and in short, it's accomplished "with fear and trembling".
The "order of doing these things" occurs, probably, only because the various apostles, who became the first bishops, were initially married--before they became apostles. Before Jesus called them, the apostles were ordinary married working-men. It's just order , Anselmina. It gets confusing among protestants because often protestant ministers are ordained right out of seminary and then, when the right girl comes along, "the rector" can marry her if he wishes. In the Orthodox system, the prospective ordinand graduates from seminary and thinks long and hard about what to do next. Some seminarians go directly into monasteries, but in the US at least, that's rare. Most seminarians in the US, who hope to be priests some day, first test that vocation by dating normally as any college guy might do, and as far as ordination is concerned, they go no farther than sub-deacon until they are absolutely sure what God wants of them. The advantage to this system is a practical one:
a) No one can say that a man "had no choice" and was forced to be a celibate priest.
b) A man has to think long and hard about whether he wants to be a married priest or a monk. You will often see, in the Orthodox Church, ordinations of men who have taken plenty of time to choose a wife, have married and maybe even have several children before they ever become deacons. It's not unusual at all to see a grey-headed deacon being ordained at the age of "over 40".
c) Another practical point about Orthodox ordination is that we don't need to classify some clergy as "Permanent Deacons". Some deacons choose to stop right there, and nobody bats an eyelash--the diaconate is a different ministry, rather than a stepping-stone to the priesthood, just as the priesthood is a ministry in its own right, rather than a stepping-stone to the episcopate.
I hope this helps. Remember, that in Orthodoxy, Holy Tradition carries weight too. Orthodoxy is not limited to "what is contained in Scripture", but of course, Scripture has a weight more or less equal to the Holy Tradition (the tradition handed down by the apostles, the Fathers of the Church and the Seven Ecumenical Councils).
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fisher:
How is it that a church with mandatory celibacy has become the largest religious movement in history? I'm not taking the mick; it genuinely puzzles me. If most ordinary people think Catholic priests must be weird, why hasn't Catholicism become one of the innumerable strange sects that litter history books? Answers on a postcard please!
One might worry, however, that centuries and centuries of, in effect, selecting many of the smartest people in a society (not just clergy but monastics) and then keeping them from reproducing is a sort of anti-eugenics, depressing the average intelligence of the population.
In Judaism, by contrast, not only have the rabbis been expected to be family men, but in troubled times congregations would make a special effort to protect the rabbi and his entire family.
Is it any wonder that given this long tradition, while rather the opposite was happening in Christendom during the same period, our Jewish neighbors often excel in any endeavor that requires brains? (I observe this in all admiration).
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
GAG:
Can you cite any evidence for your assertions?
I believe I did. Arrests, convictions, payments, the lot. Now if only John would dare to provide some sort of evidence for his assertion that it isn't true, we can be done.
I note John hasn't taken any exception to my reformulated statement that the RCC has more CONVICTED molesters and higher payouts than any other church. Of course, that is because I'm really picking up on his sense that because a) he doesn't believe reporters, and b) he thinks I'm anti Catholic, he hasn't bothered to read anything I've linked to or read.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Question: is there any possibility that the ordained RC priests who were laicised in order to marry could return to active ministry?
An RC priest's widow told me that if she had died, he could have asked to be reinstated. Now, the priest in question was J.P. Audet OP, OC*, a theologian of some repute. But no one cited chapter and verse of canon law.
* OC being Order of Canada
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by fisher:
...how is it that a church with mandatory celibacy has become the largest religious movement in history? ...If most ordinary people think Catholic priests must be weird, why hasn't Catholicism become one of the innumerable strange sects that litter history books? ...
...
The fear of sex and glorification of virginity was a characteristic of aristocratic society in the later Roman Empire. ...
To comment on ken's point - at the time, the priests of the Magna Mater qualified for the job by self-castration. There's a serious commitment for you!
And to address fisher's point: Most ordinary people today find celibacy weird. That's not been historically the case, see "maiden aunt" in a big dictionary. A greater percentage of people marry today than in most times and places. As for the history books ... they haven't all been written yet!
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Question: is there any possibility that the ordained RC priests who were laicised in order to marry could return to active ministry?
An RC priest's widow told me that if she had died, he could have asked to be reinstated. Now, the priest in question was J.P. Audet OP, OC*, a theologian of some repute. But no one cited chapter and verse of canon law.
* OC being Order of Canada
What I've always wondered, in addition to the actual canon law question on this issue, is why they would want to return?
Who wants to return to an organization that forced you to choose between being with them or getting married and seems to hold the two are mutually exclusive. Unless, of course, you started out Episcopalian?? Or wanted to be a Deacon? Or your wife died? As in, there are exceptions to the rule, which in this case only seem to me to show the original rule as unfair.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
GAG:
Can you cite any evidence for your assertions?
I believe I did. Arrests, convictions, payments, the lot. Now if only John would dare to provide some sort of evidence for his assertion that it isn't true, we can be done.
I note John hasn't taken any exception to my reformulated statement that the RCC has more CONVICTED molesters and higher payouts than any other church. Of course, that is because I'm really picking up on his sense that because a) he doesn't believe reporters, and b) he thinks I'm anti Catholic, he hasn't bothered to read anything I've linked to or read.
GAG, I'm sorry to say that you haven't provided evidence to support your assertion. The assertion was that one was greater than the other. You have asserted that there is evidence that one is very high. You have provided no evidence about the other. You made a comparison and have not provided the evidence necessary to back it up. We await your evidence with eager anticipation (but not holding our breath).
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
As I recall (and I know there are other Ship mates who could explain the details), when RC priests requested laicisation (whether to marry or not, often the former), the actual request had aspects other than "I wish to be released to (able to) marry." I believe there were elements of saying that they had not (to keep it non-technical) known what they were doing when they were ordained in the first place.
Naturally, there were priests who left to marry who later regretted the decision. However, I have known priests who married who were deeply pained at being separated from their active ministry. I could see their returning to the active ministry (even if after the non-stipendiary model not uncommon in the C of E) if that were possible.
Trisagion has a point about broken promises, though one could be repentant for those. I know that, today, it is more common for people to believe that priests should be married - or to feel compassion for those who could not live the celibacy - but it was quite devastating when many priests left the active ministry in the 1960s and 1970s. I believe this impacted the readiness of the young to pursue priesthood and, in my experience, was very upsetting to the married, who were trying to show their children an example of permanent commitment when priests and nuns were leaving in droves.
Though I believe that married men should be able to become RC priests, I am inclined to doubt that it would have a large impact on the numbers entering the priesthood. I should like to see a greater respect for the priesthood in itself - and believe there are factors, mostly unrelated to celibacy, which are very influential. I shall refrain from discussing those unrelated to celibacy here.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
GAG:
Can you cite any evidence for your assertions?
I believe I did. Arrests, convictions, payments, the lot. Now if only John would dare to provide some sort of evidence for his assertion that it isn't true, we can be done.
I note John hasn't taken any exception to my reformulated statement that the RCC has more CONVICTED molesters and higher payouts than any other church. Of course, that is because I'm really picking up on his sense that because a) he doesn't believe reporters, and b) he thinks I'm anti Catholic, he hasn't bothered to read anything I've linked to or read.
GAG, I'm sorry to say that you haven't provided evidence to support your assertion. The assertion was that one was greater than the other. You have asserted that there is evidence that one is very high. You have provided no evidence about the other. You made a comparison and have not provided the evidence necessary to back it up. We await your evidence with eager anticipation (but not holding our breath).
Fine, let John win. All the research indicates that basically NO ONE is keeping comparative statistics. The only close survey I could find related to sexual contact with parishoners, which includes adults. Indeed, the article seemed to feel it was mostly adults who were so victimised.
Unless, of course, you count this. Which states that 95% of RCC dioceses and 60% of RCC religious communities were affected. Of 195 dioceses reporting, all but seven have reported allegations of sexual abuse against youth under age 18. All regions averaged between 3% and 6% of incardinated priests, and 2.7% of those in religious community (ie, monks)
Given the oft cited three percent statistic, surely this is higher?
Interestingly, going back and looking at Presleyterians post, it doesn't actually give any rates for any denomination, just says that most of the abuse doesn't happen at the hands of ministers/priests.
[ 07. April 2005, 20:53: Message edited by: Go Anne Go ]
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Josephine: quote:
Except that, in the Orthodox church, we don't believe that marriage is dissolved by death.
I am getting confused here. Would this mean that an Orthodox wife, whose husband died, could not remarry because she would be commiting bigamy? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Thanks, Josephine. That clarifies things.
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Your explanation seems to twist it the other way to be interpreted as 'he who thinks he's going to be a bishop should get married first, before he's ordained,' which seems to be saying something a bit different.
Au contraire. It's more like, "he who thinks he should get married should go ahead and get married, and if God has other plans for him, God will advise him of those plans so that he doesn't do anything to get in God's way."
The whole process is one of prayer, discernment, guidance from the Holy Spirit and from the earthly spiritual father, and in short, it's accomplished "with fear and trembling".
The "order of doing these things" occurs, probably, only because the various apostles, who became the first bishops, were initially married--before they became apostles. Before Jesus called them, the apostles were ordinary married working-men. It's just order , Anselmina. It gets confusing among protestants because often protestant ministers are ordained right out of seminary and then, when the right girl comes along, "the rector" can marry her if he wishes. In the Orthodox system, the prospective ordinand graduates from seminary and thinks long and hard about what to do next. Some seminarians go directly into monasteries, but in the US at least, that's rare. Most seminarians in the US, who hope to be priests some day, first test that vocation by dating normally as any college guy might do, and as far as ordination is concerned, they go no farther than sub-deacon until they are absolutely sure what God wants of them. The advantage to this system is a practical one:
a) No one can say that a man "had no choice" and was forced to be a celibate priest.
b) A man has to think long and hard about whether he wants to be a married priest or a monk. You will often see, in the Orthodox Church, ordinations of men who have taken plenty of time to choose a wife, have married and maybe even have several children before they ever become deacons. It's not unusual at all to see a grey-headed deacon being ordained at the age of "over 40".
c) Another practical point about Orthodox ordination is that we don't need to classify some clergy as "Permanent Deacons". Some deacons choose to stop right there, and nobody bats an eyelash--the diaconate is a different ministry, rather than a stepping-stone to the priesthood, just as the priesthood is a ministry in its own right, rather than a stepping-stone to the episcopate.
I hope this helps. Remember, that in Orthodoxy, Holy Tradition carries weight too. Orthodoxy is not limited to "what is contained in Scripture", but of course, Scripture has a weight more or less equal to the Holy Tradition (the tradition handed down by the apostles, the Fathers of the Church and the Seven Ecumenical Councils).
Yes, it helps very much, so thank you for the explanation. I still don't see how the scripture explicitly aids the theology of the 'ordering', as it does seem to apply to 'bishops/presbyters/overseers' in particular who are ordained. But I understand, from what you're saying, that Church order in Orthodoxy carries canonical weight and that other things, therefore, are equally to be considered. So I think I can at least see where you're coming from and why my argument is probably not relevant from the Orthodox perspective.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I am getting confused here. Would this mean that an Orthodox wife, whose husband died, could not remarry because she would be commiting bigamy?
We consider remarriage after death to be no different than remarriage after divorce. The marriage shouldn't have ended, but because of the weakness of one or both of the partners, it has. It wasn't meant to be so, but that's one of the things that can happen when sinners marry other sinners.
So, when a marriage has ended, either because of divorce, or because one of the partners has died and the other partner hasn't the strength to keep the marriage alive, the church may grant permission to remarry. It's not an automatic thing -- it's a pastoral concession to the realities of life. The service for a second wedding is penitential. Because we view marriage as a calling, a place to work out your salvation in fear and trembling, the church recognizes that some people need to be married. And for them, if the first marriage ends, the grace of a second marriage is permitted.
For most of the first millenium, a second marriage couldn't be done in the church at all. Someone getting married a second time just had a civil marriage, and they were excommunicate as adulterers for a period of several years. At the end of the penance, they were readmitted to the Eucharist, and their marriage was at that point considered a Christian marriage.
It was under the Ottomans that the church became more liberal on second marriages, and the rite of second marriage began to be used, and that excommunication following a second marriage was no longer imposed.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Originally posted by Anselmina: quote:
my argument is probably not relevant from the Orthodox perspective.
Oh, please don't think that! For one thing, it helps me to try harder to be a bit less obtuse! It is very good for us (Orthodoxen) to be prompted to think things through, so you did us all a favor, and me a big favor!
I am so glad Josephine is here--she has a much clearer understanding of all these matters than I do!
It's good we can discuss these things together, so that we can have a better idea of what our clergy have to think about. So often, I'm afraid we don't even imagine how much goes into the decision to enter Holy Orders. Some people think it's a "cushy job" where you sit all day in a book-lined study, dressed in comfortable tweeds, smoking a pipe and listening to people's troubles from behind a desk....
But it is a calling, and a calling to a life that "Lord, You know it ain't easy...."
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
