FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Clerical celibacy, Eastern defense - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Clerical celibacy, Eastern defense (/showthread.php?tid=86012)

Pages: 1 2


RE: Clerical celibacy, Eastern defense - GangGreen - 01-24-2020

(01-24-2020, 12:12 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(01-24-2020, 11:09 AM)GangGreen Wrote: Anyway, agreed with the rest. I can see an argument for allowing a lower class (in a sense) married clergy. However, I could see how doing so could very well lessen the amount of celibate clergy and cause a divide within the priestly ranks if there is a sizable group of married clergy (rather than just having a small number of exceptions). Married priests would also not be able to devote the same amount of time as a celibate priest because they also have a vocation to their marriage and as a parent. As such their time would be divided. Could it be done? Probably, it exists in the east. However, it is clear that a celibate priesthood is optimal and Scripture supports such a stance.

The Latin lack of faith on this is astounding.  You believe God can make a priest able to read a penitent's heart.  You believe God can make a priest levitate.  You believe God can make a priest bilocate.  But you can't believe God can make a priest who can also manage married life?  How can you believe in a God who can perform the supernatural when you don't even believe in a God who can perform the natural?

I think I have more of an idea that a married priest can't be more than a 9-5 or 8 hour workday priest. Anyone who's married with children can tell you how it's not the easiest to balance work and family. I guess if you have a lot more priests then you can manage in shifts similar to cops, doctors, etc. However, it'd be a different approach to the priesthood as we currently know it where all priests are pretty much on call 24/7/365.


RE: Clerical celibacy, Eastern defense - MagisterMusicae - 01-24-2020

I do have to say that I find the arguments about the workload of a priest and distractions, etc. as really terrible arguments, because as Melkite's objections point out they are incredibly weak.

They may be serviceable and practical, but they also fail to touch on anything essential about the priesthood, and so they are highly inadequate.

If it's just about time and commitment and married clergy being divided, then the promise of greater numbers should solve this. So while it's fair to point out all that a dedicated Latin priest does that would become impossible, heavier loads for other professions are just as demanding on certain levels if not more so, and we do not suggest that all soldiers, doctors, or police be unmarried.

There is a danger if we do not argue from what has been Apostolic tradition, and also from the nature of the priesthood that we create overly-simplistic arguments which do not definitively answer the objections.


RE: Clerical celibacy, Eastern defense - newenglandsun - 01-24-2020

(01-24-2020, 11:09 AM)GangGreen Wrote:
(01-24-2020, 08:14 AM)austenbosten Wrote: That is one of the benefits of clerical celibacy, but there's some other issues to point out.

1) EVERYONE is called to celibacy.  Only those who are in holy matrimony may engage in marital relations, everyone else has to be celibate.
2) Sex is a distraction.  All of us who engage in sexual relations know how difficult it can to be to focus on anything else other than sex when our passions are controlling us. 
3) The celibate man is a focused man.  They are those who are devoted and focus, and have no time for relationships and satisfying their loins.
4) Celibate priests are able to channel their passion to preaching the Word of God, passion becomes channeled for the spiritual as opposed to the temporal.
5) St Paul argued for celibacy 'nuff said.


As for the paper vs reality, it is important to state that in order to remain chaste and celibate, prayer is necessary.  It's not the fault of the practice if the necessary conditions are not being met.  Many priests and bishops who struggle with celibacy are not men of strong prayer life.  Prayer is first and foremost.  Priests have to pray the Divine Office every day, but failure to do so will cause these men to fall.
You're mixing up your definitions on #1.

Chastity relates to purity in one's state of life. Whereas if one is single they cannot engage in relations and if one is married they may only do so with their spouse.
Celibacy refers to not being married
Continence refers to not engaging in sexual relations.

As such, everyone is called to chastity. Clerics and religious are called to chastity, celibacy, and continence.

Anyway, agreed with the rest. I can see an argument for allowing a lower class (in a sense) married clergy. However, I could see how doing so could very well lessen the amount of celibate clergy and cause a divide within the priestly ranks if there is a sizable group of married clergy (rather than just having a small number of exceptions). Married priests would also not be able to devote the same amount of time as a celibate priest because they also have a vocation to their marriage and as a parent. As such their time would be divided. Could it be done? Probably, it exists in the east. However, it is clear that a celibate priesthood is optimal and Scripture supports such a stance.
Such division between black clergy (monastic) and white clergy (married) did happen in Russia in the 19th century.


RE: Clerical celibacy, Eastern defense - austenbosten - 01-24-2020

1) Although sex can be a distraction for many, it does not mean that there cannot be married men who can control themselves.
A) Agreed, but given that lust is the sin that draws most to Hell as Our Blessed Mother at Fatima stated: "More souls go to Hell because of the sins of the flesh than for any other reason." It is important that we do not trespass against the cardinal virtue of Prudence and revoke a practice older than the Rosary in a time when Lust is the chief cause of scandal in the Church.  While any inordinate passion is evil, let us not fool ourselves into thinking sex doesn't have more sway over one's desires than food.

2) Married men can be focused too.  Married men can be as focused as celibate men on the needs of a parish.
A) Utterly false!  A married man is husband to his wife and family.  When pressed between servicing the needs of the Church and his family, either his family is forced to suffer, or the Church.  Unless the man is blessed with the gift of bilocation, he cannot be two places at once.  A celibate priest is married to the Church and does not have to share his time with a wife and family.

3) If celibacy is so great?  Why not demand it of others
A) Because we are not talking about others, we are talking about the Church.  Yes a soldier with no wife would be a better soldier as he has no commitments other than the army.

3)Why is there so much hyperfocus on sexual passion when there are others?
A) There is an answer I could give, but I will refrain for the sake of charity.  I will say this.  Latins hyperfocus on sexual passion because it is the cause of much downfall in man.  It was sexual passion that caused King David to sin, it was sexual passion that cause Samson to fall and lose his strength and sight, it was sexual passion that caused the debauchery of Sodom that was eventually destroyed by God.  It would be sexual passion that would drive the greatest arch-heretic Martin Luther to the foulest of blasphemies.  It would also be sexual passions of King Henry VIII that would destroy the visible Church of England and drive Her underground and create millions of martyrs and the wickedness the unleashed on the world still permeates today.

4)If it's just about time and commitment and married clergy being divided, then the promise of greater numbers should solve this.
A)Haha, the promise...oh the promises.  Like how the Novus Ordo promised to bring about a new springtime?  Like how creating "Reconciliation Rooms" would bring about more confessions?  Who makes these promises?  Are these the same men who promised that Peter's Pence went to those in need and not funding perverted films promoting sodomy. 

Finally just who is going to pay for all of this?  Who will pay for the priest to support the wife and children?  The money will have to come from the Church and that means less funds to the poor and needy. 

If the Church needs married priests because of a shortage of priests then it begs the question why the shortage?  What occurred between the 1950s where the seminaries were turning away men and now?  We were told that Vatican II did not destroy anything, we were told all about how the seminaries are growing, but now we need married priests because of a shortage?

two plus two indeed makes five!


RE: Clerical celibacy, Eastern defense - Melkite - 01-24-2020

(01-24-2020, 08:46 PM)austenbosten Wrote: 1) Although sex can be a distraction for many, it does not mean that there cannot be married men who can control themselves.
A) Agreed, but given that lust is the sin that draws most to Hell as Our Blessed Mother at Fatima stated: "More souls go to Hell because of the sins of the flesh than for any other reason." It is important that we do not trespass against the cardinal virtue of Prudence and revoke a practice older than the Rosary in a time when Lust is the chief cause of scandal in the Church.  While any inordinate passion is evil, let us not fool ourselves into thinking sex doesn't have more sway over one's desires than food.

Agreed on prudence, and agreed that sex has more sway than other passions.  I guess I should clarify that, even though I'm an adamant supporter of married priests, I'm not arguing that this is something the Latin Church should necessarily adopt on a broad scale.  I definitely agree that married clergy will not in anyway solve the sex abuse problem.  I think there is a very good argument to be made that, ignoring the debate on whether married priests are appropriate in general, now is probably not a prudent time for the Latin Church to adopt the practice.  My argument is against the position that allowing married priests is basically heretical, or that ordaining married men is inherently contrary to the nature of holy orders.


Quote:2) Married men can be focused too.  Married men can be as focused as celibate men on the needs of a parish.
Quote:A) Utterly false!  A married man is husband to his wife and family.  When pressed between servicing the needs of the Church and his family, either his family is forced to suffer, or the Church.  Unless the man is blessed with the gift of bilocation, he cannot be two places at once.  A celibate priest is married to the Church and does not have to share his time with a wife and family.

I can accept that God rarely grants the grace necessary for a man to be both a priest and a husband and father, and to do all well.  But I've seen married priests who do it, and I believe they have managed both well because their children don't grow up to show any signs of a troubled childhood, or harbor any anger towards the Church or rejection of it.  Regarding balancing the needs of a parish and family, a celibate priest can just as easily be torn between the needs of different parishioners.  I'm sure it's happened once or twice that a priest has been called to urgently administer last rites to different parishioners at the same time, and was not able to see both before they passed.  We're talking about practical matters, nothing that is beyond God's grace if he wishes to bestow it.  From a purely practical standpoint, I would agree with you: it makes sense for priests to not have a family so that they can devote themselves solely to the needs of the Church.  With man, some things are impossible.  With God, nothing's impossible.  So, I guess you could say, "How hard is it for a priest to also be a husband and a father?  As hard as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle."


RE: Clerical celibacy, Eastern defense - austenbosten - 01-24-2020

(01-24-2020, 09:29 PM)Melkite Wrote: Agreed on prudence, and agreed that sex has more sway than other passions.  I guess I should clarify that, even though I'm an adamant supporter of married priests, I'm not arguing that this is something the Latin Church should necessarily adopt on a broad scale.  I definitely agree that married clergy will not in anyway solve the sex abuse problem.  I think there is a very good argument to be made that, ignoring the debate on whether married priests are appropriate in general, now is probably not a prudent time for the Latin Church to adopt the practice.  My argument is against the position that allowing married priests is basically heretical, or that ordaining married men is inherently contrary to the nature of holy orders.

I can accept that God rarely grants the grace necessary for a man to be both a priest and a husband and father, and to do all well.  But I've seen married priests who do it, and I believe they have managed both well because their children don't grow up to show any signs of a troubled childhood, or harbor any anger towards the Church or rejection of it.  Regarding balancing the needs of a parish and family, a celibate priest can just as easily be torn between the needs of different parishioners.  I'm sure it's happened once or twice that a priest has been called to urgently administer last rites to different parishioners at the same time, and was not able to see both before they passed.  We're talking about practical matters, nothing that is beyond God's grace if he wishes to bestow it.  From a purely practical standpoint, I would agree with you: it makes sense for priests to not have a family so that they can devote themselves solely to the needs of the Church.  With man, some things are impossible.  With God, nothing's impossible.  So, I guess you could say, "How hard is it for a priest to also be a husband and a father?  As hard as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle."

And that's where MagisterMusicae is spot on about the Apostolic Tradition argument.  While practically there are good arguments, it really comes down to practice.  Latins have had celibate priesthood for as long as we have been saying the Nicene Creed.  We should only consider changing it if the Church is approaching near collapse.  We are nowhere close to that and if the Vatican would get back to teaching Catholicism instead of Vatican II and the devil's farts that come with it, then perhaps they might see the seminaries grow once again.

Again if one supports married priests, it is why we have the Uniates, or even the Anglican Ordinate for that matter.


RE: Clerical celibacy, Eastern defense - newenglandsun - 01-25-2020

(01-25-2020, 12:08 PM)Momarchist Wrote: I am wary of opening up clerical celibacy being a Trojan horse for women in the diaconate & priesthood as well. With that being said, I agree with OP about looking at this on paper. The nefarious scandals prominent in the Church today have caused me to look critically at priestly celibacy. Certainly not because any impious claim such as "Celibacy causes such scandals". I am a newer convert and this issue troubles me a lot so here is what I have considered...

1) In our modern times, people are deracinated e.g. not a part of a small scale organic/tribal village and from smaller family sizes than in the past. The cross-generational way of life that belonged to the old world has largely ceased to exist. Young seminarians, if they are lucky enough to come from a traditional family, will have more of this background and so be better versed in marriage, family life, and in general be more mature and well rounded. But are most seminarians from this background today? Family life is a path to holiness that immerses us intimately in a world of other personalities that help us grow... the deracinated young man who has discerned a vocation to the priesthood does not have this but could become better as a man with it. The young priests I have met are awkward.
2) Selection bias for men not interested in women. Ideally yes, the man is interested in women but willing to abdicate his desires in favor of a higher calling than marriage. But how does this work out in practice? What is the ratio of "normal"/vigorous men to effete/fastidious men in the priesthood? How does this ratio affect how crimes like the current scandals are handled later on? 

Perhaps because modernity and tradition are not mutually exclusive but exerting influence on each other it is wise to not always insist on tradition if a change is warranted. Conservative suspicion is a good and protective thing but there are times when it serves prudence to change course. The Eastern Church does not have the homosexuality problems of the Catholic Church and I would say it is probably because they are attracting a more normal kind of man to the priesthood. Normal as in naturally well disposed, not as in he doesn't have an extraordinary calling. 

I also went to an Orthodox Church for a year before becoming Catholic. The priest was a little less available but still gave good counsel and was a good priest. I truly don't think the roles are mutually exclusive. It's like anything else in this life, nothing is perfect. With celibacy perhaps you get some problems, with married priests you get some problems. If marriage is curative of the current ills of the Church by getting more masculine men involved, then FWIW I think it's worth re-evaluating. 

I really don't mean to cause offense, I have been thinking about this a lot lately and very bothered with the state of things, please be kind to me.
Believe me, if the Orthodox haven't considered women's ordination not the High Anglicans I was with, married clergy won't lead there ;)


RE: Clerical celibacy, Eastern defense - divinesilence80 - 01-29-2020

(01-25-2020, 12:08 PM)Momarchist Wrote: I am wary of opening up clerical celibacy being a Trojan horse for women in the diaconate & priesthood as well.

.....

You made several good points in there.... The first here though is my main concern albeit I think the real goal is the contraception issue. The promise of sexual pleasure is REALLY effective at sedating the masses. Removing the contraception ban would be a huge step in silencing the opposition.

(01-25-2020, 01:38 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: Believe me, if the Orthodox haven't considered women's ordination not the High Anglicans I was with, married clergy won't lead there ;)

Well, not quite. The Catholic Church is like the biggest baddest T-Rex a hunter could come across. Taking it out to mount its head on the wall is a really seductive thought / trophy for that resist it. The Orthodox and others are either too small in number to present a problem or as in the case of Russia to well protected by a guy not afraid to pull the trigger (Vladdy Putin). The western world would on average prefer to usurp our influence, twist it, and use it for their own devices. This COULD be a gateway to doing so....


RE: Clerical celibacy, Eastern defense - MagisterMusicae - 01-29-2020

(01-24-2020, 10:25 PM)austenbosten Wrote: And that's where MagisterMusicae is spot on about the Apostolic Tradition argument.  While practically there are good arguments, it really comes down to practice.  Latins have had celibate priesthood for as long as we have been saying the Nicene Creed.  We should only consider changing it if the Church is approaching near collapse.  We are nowhere close to that and if the Vatican would get back to teaching Catholicism instead of Vatican II and the devil's farts that come with it, then perhaps they might see the seminaries grow once again.

That is why I have said I think married clergy is a solution looking for a problem.

The very fact that it seem to be the panacea for "pedophile" clergy, for the dearth of vocations, now the particular "culture" in the Amazon (which peopl ahev pointed out is a red herring) and probably soon for climate change, shows that it is desired, and the problems are being made to fit a particular narrative.

The goal is married clergy, either as an endpoint or as the next step towards the ultimate goal. I think the goal is to instill in every way possible a merely natural humanistic religious sense which always defers to a practical end, so as to gently eliminate the supernatural (knowing it is impossible to violently remove it such as in the French Revolution). The married priest is just the next step towards turning the priest into a mere Protestant pastor with some Sacramental power but in a palatable way for the majority of people they have been conditioning and poisoning for many years now—drop by drop, making the poison which will result in the embrace of a totally naturalistic religion more drinkable and the evil unnoticeable.

And the problems posited which all seem to have this same solution of married Latin priests always can be shown to never be adequately treated by married priests.

The "pedophile" problem is not a pedophile problem at all, it is a homosexual ephebophilia. Pedophilia is a mental disease which seeks sexual pleasure from those clearly incapable of offering it or understanding it because pre-pubescent. Ephebophilia seeks this pleasure from the pubescent or post-pubescent, who are capable or nearly so who can understand these things. Ephebophilia is closely tied up with homosexuality where many homosexual men have a predilection for men who appear to be young teenagers. Survey the cases in the Church and one finds it is predominently male-on-male abuse of pubescent or post-pubescent boys. Since heterosexual marriage doesn't fix homosexual desires, married clergy doesn't fix this problem.

The vocational problem can be easily shown to be the new concept of the priesthood, which has destroyed the self-sacrificial notion so clearly enunciated before the Council, to a kind of Protestant pastor/self-help guru that the modern priest is. Of course that destroys a young man's desire to offer himself for a celibate priesthood, if he's just going to be a glorified Christian social worker. The stats from the gutting of the traditional notion of the priesthood can clearly be linked to the decline. So failing to return to the traditional notion, and lowering the bar even farther towards a Protestant pastor with some powers from Orders, who is not firstly, as Christ, to sacrifice himself for his flock rather than a family, is never going to encourage vocations. It might fix the numbers for a few years, but will ultimately make the situation worse, not better. If you don't have enough SEALs do you start lowering the fitness standards?

So, as I say, married clergy in the Latin Church is a solution looking for a problem. The problem is that there are a lot of people today trying to find a problem to which to demand this solution they have curated so well for whatever opportunity they can find.


RE: Clerical celibacy, Eastern defense - newenglandsun - 01-30-2020

(01-29-2020, 07:17 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote: Well, not quite. The Catholic Church is like the biggest baddest T-Rex a hunter could come across. Taking it out to mount its head on the wall is a really seductive thought / trophy for [those] that resist it. The Orthodox and others are either too small in number to present a problem or as in the case of Russia to well protected by a guy not afraid to pull the trigger (Vladdy Putin). The western world would on average prefer to usurp our influence, twist it, and use it for their own devices. This COULD be a gateway to doing so....
That is true. And a fair point. Though Eastern rite Catholics have permitted married clergy and they are furthest away from the idea of having female clergy in their ranks. That said, the demographic arguments that it would increase the number of men called to the clergy are bizarre and based on trivial and irrelevant data. It's like what the Congressional Budget Committee does in the U.S. or what the DMV does when it gives its bogus argument against "first come first serve" tradition. Obviously, "first come first serve" would significantly reduce wait times at the DMV but it persists on the "needs/necessities" system any way based on bogus scientific data.

What would really increase the number of men called to clergy is a return to the enchantment of the Mass/Liturgy. The reality is that since VII, the number of men called to the priesthood has dramatically decreased and not increased. Maybe if we look at VII as the cause of this, then we may see why. Men don't want to serve a woman who thinks she can abuse them. The Church is that woman. The Church is that damsel. Men want to be knights who fight for a lady but if that lady is not offering them anything of beauty, they walk away. The Church has simply stopped giving them beauty. She has fallen into sluttiness and whoredom (I hate to say that, but even Israel did this--and was even symbolized by a whore when Hosea was asked by God to marry one). That's why the men called to serve her are dropping.