|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: marriage for Roman rite Catholic priests
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
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 ?
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Dunno but I'd like some knowledgable RC answer. FWIW I was told by a priest that there was no theological issue at stake, and that it was a practical discipline similar in a way to the requirement for certain educational attainment.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
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.
I would expect that if there are any proposals to change the rules of celibacy for Roman Catholic Priests, it will be along similar or identical lines to the Eastern Orthodox.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 608 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Didn't a while ago, the men were allowed to be married and become Roman Catholic priests? And maybe they might also think about women being important too.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Didn't a while ago, the men were allowed to be married and become Roman Catholic priests?
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
I think this is a serious bit of kiteflying. Having said that, are there any Catholics left who really want to insist on celibacy in the diocesan priesthood?
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
The hierarchy bas been concerned about the number of homosexuals entering its priesthood. Could this be the subtext?
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
the clergy is divided into "black" and "white", with black being the celibate, monastic clergy (based on the color of their robes.. but I n ever understood this because married parish priests also wear black).
I don't know about elsewhere, but in Russia it was customary for "black" priests to serve in monasteries while all clergy with parishes were to be from the "white" clergy (except in extreme situations), because it was considered that they could related to their parishioners better.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
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...
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.
I believe at some later point the Catholic even higher powers that be (Vatican) put out some sort of note to their subordinates saying "hey, these guys are Catholic, but this is the deal we made with them back when they "converted" to Catholicism, so leave them be and don't try to force them to do things your way". (or words to that effect). but it was too late for that particular group.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
This was last discussed at the Synod of Bishops in Rome in 2005. It was fairly decisively decided against changing current practice for the Latin Church. Interestingly the Eastern hierarchs present, and in particular the Melkite patriarch, sounded a very large bell of warning during the discussions that in the East ordaining married men hadn't solved clergy shortages and that a married priesthood had it's own associated problems.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Having said all this, I tend to think that Cardinal Keith O'Brien's words (if he said them at all) were off the cuff and had no authority whatsoever. I believe there's plenty of talk, not only of removing the requirement of Priestly celibacy, but also women Priests, in the ranks of the english RC Church. But that's all it is - just talk.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
They can talk about women priests all they like, but the Vatican will never stand for it. Barring a schism (in which a significant number of North American and European Catholics leave the church to form a more liberal jurisdiction), women priests aren't going to happen.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
The more solid propositions (from a Latin p.o.v.) are for the priestly ordination of viri probati, mature men who, perhaps, might have served as married deacons, and then undergone the appropriate training for priests. This was put forth a few times by Latin American (and, I think, Oceanian) bishops as a way forward.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The resistance to changing the celibacy rule actually makes plenty of sense to me. They've been doing it that way for centuries, but the priest shortage is only a couple decades old. Why rush to change something that has worked for so long for a short-term trend?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
gel
Apprentice
# 17567
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Didn't a while ago, the men were allowed to be married and become Roman Catholic priests?
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.
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."
--------------------
Churchgoers Children Choir Robes
Churchgoers Women Clergy Rob
Posts: 5 | From: Hampden, ND | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.
Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
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...
Then you haven't read your Bible very closely: Matthew 8:14
I would caution against the abandonment of mandatory celibacy for priests for several reasons, not least that suggested by Zach82. 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. Undoing those knots might undo many other things too.
There are very good grounds for believing sexual continence enjoined on priests is of extremely early origin and the Latin discipline of urging celibacy is also very early. That it only became the Universal law of the Latin Church much later is neither here no there. It has about it the feel of the authentic development of doctrine - indeed, Sir Kevin, if you apply Newman's seven notes or tests from his 1845 Essay on Development, that's exactly what it looks like.
To pick up on CL's point. I happened to be in Rome for much of the Synod on the Eucharist in 2005. Contrary to the black legend spread by The Bitter Pill [aka The Tablet] in the UK and the National Catholic Distorter in the US, it wasn't the old, white men of the wicked Vatican that knocked the idea on he head. In intervention after intervention it was the Bishops of Africa, Asia and Latin America (with several exceptions) who urged the Synod not to go down this route, In the end, the Synod, in its eleventh proposition to the Holy Father resolved that:
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
.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
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...
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.
The tale in Mark seems to assume that she was not about, since the party of disciples goes to Peter's home, where his MiL is sick of a fever. Jesus heals her and she gets up and waits on them all. (Irreverent thoughts cross my mind here.) If Peter's wife was about, presumably she would have been part of the entertaining party.
[ 23. February 2013, 07:11: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
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.
[ 23. February 2013, 07:22: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
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)
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.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
A correction to the above.
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.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
If you want to dispense with the rule on celibacy, have married clergy, and ordain women, you want to be in the Anglican church. I'm glad those things are there for people who want them, but the day they're brought into the Catholic church is the day I leave it.
And I'm getting rather tired of people from outside rushing to champion their causes in an organization they don't belong to and "liberate" us when we're already perfectly free to vote with our feet but we stay there, because actually, most of us aren't unhappy with the status quo. Or we'd leave.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Thank you, Ariel.
For all the defects of my Church, both perceived and real, it is still my home.
Strangely enough, I worship God, not the church.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Mark Betts [[ LIKES ]] Ariel's post.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
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:
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.
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.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Have you been reading stuff by the fiction writer Dan Brown by any chance?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
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:
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.
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.
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.
I suppose right here on this thread isn't a bad place to start, with posts such as this and this to name but two.
The differences between East and West were apparent a long time before the Great Schism (around 1054) when they separated and became the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Churches.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I Cor 9:3-10 which would have been written a generation or so later, refers to Peter's wife travelling with him.
Just because they didn't have a glossy website with his wife with an impeccable blonde perm and her message to the sisters, does not mean she just disappeared.
One should no more speculate from evidence that isn't there than the Vicky Pryce jury, but it is at least possible that in Jesus's lifetime, the wives of those disciples who had them were cooking for the team.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Thank you Mark Betts for your reply, but I see that I have misled you. In saying that I know little of the eastern rite churches, I meant eastern rite Catholics, such as the Syro Malabar church. That doesn't mean I know a lot about Orthodoxy but I know that a lot more than priestly celibacy divides it from Catholicism. I was thinking of the more specific reasons why married priests might be suitable for eastern rite Catholics but not latin rite.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
For a very nice historical overview, both for the West and East, I recommend reading "Priestly celibacy in patristics and in the history of the Church", by Roman Cholij (Secretary of the Apostolic Exarch for Ukrainian Catholics in Great Britain). It shows very clearly that the roots of the discipline of celibacy can be traced to the requirement of sexual continence, and that this indeed was associated with clergy from the earliest times. In particular, and this is very important, continence within marriage. While we may find this to be a shocking concept, that was in fact the main concern of early legislation: those in holy orders could indeed be married, but they could not have sexual relations with their spouses. In different ways, the legislation we have ended up with in both West and East are a reaction to the continuous struggle to maintain clerical continence. 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...)
So if people go on about how there used to be married clergy in the (Latin) Church, they should also admit that they were basically supposed to be sexually continent. If people want to reinstate continent marriages as a mode of clerical life, then they have a historical point. Otherwise, not so much. And yes, I realize that married clergy often did have sex and children. Precisely. That is why the Western Church eventually gave up on this and imposed celibacy!
quote:
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.
Yeah. ![[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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Didn't a while ago, the men were allowed to be married and become Roman Catholic priests?
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.
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?
[ 23. February 2013, 11:19: Message edited by: Qoheleth. ]
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Didn't a while ago, the men were allowed to be married and become Roman Catholic priests?
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.
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?
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.
Married Ordinariate clergy as a rule are reluctant to be drawn on the issue, bar a general attitude of "That's up to Rome, nowt to do with me".
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
Ingo, thank you for that link which is very interesting indeed. I knew that perpetual continence within marriage was a value among some early Christians, early married saints, etc, but had not realised it was the norm for priests--or so this article seems to prove.
The two paragraphs below, copied from the article, are especially Interesting:
QUOTE 1 from Roman Cholij's article:
There is a similar canon which certain manuscripts ascribe to the First Council of Aries (314), considered to be a sort of General Council of the West. Canon 29 reads:
Moreover, (concerned with) what is worthy, pure, and honest, we exhort our brothers (in the episcopate) to make sure that priests and deacons have no (sexual) relations with their wives, since they are serving the ministry every day. Whoever will act against this decision, will be deposed from the honour of the clergy.18
END QUOTE
QUOTE 2 from Roman Cholij's article:
It is true that, in the patristic age, the marked sense of the transcendence of God led to an anthropology that relativized many of the values of marriage to the things of this world. Relative to the things of God, sexual activity could be described in terms that draw on the vocabulary of Levitical ritualism but which offend the linguistic sensibilities of our own time.55 And yet it would be wrong to see in this use of language a veiled encratism, and in the discipline of priestly continence an attack on marriage. The fact that married men, with sexual experience, were chosen for the ministry showed the Church’s respect towards conjugal values.56 The new exclusive relationship to the Church inherent in the nature of priestly ordination would mean, however, that thenceforth the type of exclusivity implicit in sexual relations had to be renounced.57
END QUOTE
In the first, we see that the feeling at Arles in 314 (if that is the correct provenance of the canon) was that sexual relations somehow tainted the priest who would then be handling and administering communion. This idea is echoed in rulings for Eastern priests which discuss temporary continence, like the abstinence that used to be recommended for lay people at certain times in West and East.
The second paragraph touches on the crux of all this: the different feelings about sex, even within marriage, in ancient times and today.
Today we (most of us? many of us? all of us?) see sex as a crucial part of the married relationship, and in its own way a spiritual thing, almost a divine/sacramental thing when rightly used in a loving couple, and not a thing of taint. Perhaps many modern Christians practice a temporary abstinence, for reasons like rhythm method practice or as a self-discipline, but this doesn't mean they see sex as unclean in any way, just something that perhaps we shouldn't be too greedy about and should handle with respect...
So is this the crux of it? Have our attitudes to sex changed profoundly? It seems to me they have--in lives of early saints, for example, virginity is held up as a good thing, far, far superior to marriage and a sexual life. Sexuality, even monogamous and between loving Christian spouses, seems to have been seen in the ascetic early church as intrinsically inferior--not just a bit inferior, but very much so.
I must admit I haven't yet finished Roman Cholij's piece--I'm interested in how the Orthodox church found accommodation with all this.
In the West there's also always been the practical argument, that an unmarried priest with no wife or children to worry about can give himself entirely to the church and parishioners...
...though yet again, the Orthodox seem to manage. (I remember a wonderful Greek Orthodox church in the US where the priest had a wife and about six children and the whole family was beloved in the parish and indeed the community--the only family like that I know personally, but they are obviously everywhere).
All interesting stuff.
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Penny S:
[qb] I found this timeline [...]
A Brief History of Priestly Celibacy
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
[ 23. February 2013, 13:39: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
[ 23. February 2013, 14:05: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
There is an interesting argument to be had from the foundational documents.
Here is a Catholic commentary on 1 Timothy 3.
It is worth highlighting these verses
quote:
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?
The RSV Catholic edition translates those verses as follows.
quote:
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?
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?
Some of this may be better explored in Kergmania, but I'll see how it goes.
[ 23. February 2013, 14:42: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
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.
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).
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.
[ 23. February 2013, 14:45: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
