married clergy
#21
(12-11-2015, 06:37 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Sorry for calling you obtuse twice.

Sorry for calling optuse once.
Reply
#22
(12-11-2015, 06:18 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I'm sorry, but the only thing obtuse here is your opinion.

I'm not throwing straws. The OP probably asked the question because of the news that this will be the subject of the next Synod. We know for a fact that the Synod on the family had nothing to do with families, so I don't see why this next Synod will be on married priests.
And even if it were, everybody who is not obtuse like yourself already answered: the Roman Church has a tradition and there's no point in changing it unless one has the wicked itch for change like these modernists have. To even discuss the possibility or why it is better it is like placing yourself above tradition, to use the image of rich here above.

What i ment by throwing straws was that you were using a strawman argument because i never said anything about lady deacons, gay marriage, population control.

Alowing for married preists is somthing that was done before and can be done again without causing undo harm to the tradisions of the Church.  And  to decuss the possiblity of the church returing to a preveuss tradition is in know way placing oneself above tradition or emplying i have some kind of wicked itch for change like the modernists have. that's just silly.
I love our beutiful tradition of a celibat pirsthood and I want to strengen and keep it.  I just think that it might be time to consider a married pirsthood along side of it.
 
Reply
#23
(12-13-2015, 03:18 AM)Might_4_Right Wrote: I love our beutiful tradition of a celibat pirsthood and I want to strengen and keep it.  I just think that it might be time to consider a married pirsthood along side of it.

Why?  Also, why now?  People have been having sex for a very long time.  How come it is now so irresistible that it's OK to make what, at the very least, has the appearance of being a concession to the popular and erroneous belief that it's unreasonable to ask someone to be celibate?  I have known a few lay men who said they would love to be priests, if the Church would only relax the celibacy rule.  What kind of priest would that be?  Men who are willing to lay down everything- except sex.  They would make horrible priests- every single one of them.
Reply
#24
(12-13-2015, 04:17 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote:
(12-13-2015, 03:18 AM)Might_4_Right Wrote: I love our beutiful tradition of a celibat pirsthood and I want to strengen and keep it.  I just think that it might be time to consider a married pirsthood along side of it.

Why?  Also, why now?  People have been having sex for a very long time.  How come it is now so irresistible that it's OK to make what, at the very least, has the appearance of being a concession to the popular and erroneous belief that it's unreasonable to ask someone to be celibate?  I have known a few lay men who said they would love to be priests, if the Church would only relax the celibacy rule.  What kind of priest would that be?  Men who are willing to lay down everything- except sex.  They would make horrible priests- every single one of them.

You ask why. Because there are so many Good and Faithful Catholic men who would make wonderful priests. Why now. Because our Church is in a tearabe Pierst crises we need more. It is not unreasonable to ask someone to be celibate. It is somthing some men are called to and want to to be.

You ask what kind of priest would a married man be? If he is a good and faithful Catholic, I think he could make a wonderful preist.

And you are apsulutly right when you say  "Men who are willing to lay down everything- except sex" would make G-d awful priests. They are the ones curantly in the priesthood who are reaking such havic in our church today, think peddafile scandle.

I think where you might be confused is you think that celibacy is equal to continence, that is abstaining from sexual intercourse, but its not. Celibacy just means unmarried. You see. It's not that allowing for married pirest means that those married men are some kind of sex feends. They just restrict the intimete moments with one women within the bounds of the Sacrament of Holy Matramony.
Reply
#25
This is probably the worst time for married clergy. And because there are bad priests the solution is not to be even more lax.

On the other hand, part of me do want to see NO priests die out. I suppose with married clergy the NO will gain a couple of centuries beyond its natural life.
Reply
#26
I personally think that a married priesthood is not out of the question; however, I don't think this is the right time for such a thing.
Reply
#27
Before I ever met a married priest, the idea bothered me greatly. I felt like it was a betrayal of tradition and a supreme oddity, and that the priests family would be "parish royalty" above everyone else.

I have now met married Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Melkite, and Anglican Ordinariate priests, and I have a much better image of it. The families are generally wonderful, and they never seem to overshadow the priest or dominate the parish/mission. And as a married man, there are some things I have found a married priest better able to advise me on than most celibate priests I know (not that this is universal...I wouldn't refuse advice from a celibate priest, but just an observation based on experience.)

However, in the mainstream Latin church, I think it would be disastrous for several reasons:
1. The church simply isn't set up for it.  Latin diocese expect priests to be able to move when ordered, to say several masses per Sunday, (in my area) to handle one small town parish and multiple rural missions, etc. All this would be difficult for a married man.
2. Not to start a discussion on feminism, etc, but I think in the mainstream Novus Ordo Latin church, you would get a very different type of priest's wife much of the time.  There is a big difference between a culture where the role of presbytera/khouria, etc. is well defined in relationship to the role of the priest, and one where it is not.
3. As a novelty to the Latin Church, it would attract the wrong kind of men: those who love novelty.
4. Seminary training is an issue. I'm not sure how the Easterners get around it, either. But in the Latin Church, it would be extraordinarily difficult for a married man to attend seminary. I fear the amount of formation and training would be decreased to accommodate work, time with family, etc.

My (tongue-in-cheek) solution: allow married priests in the Latin Church, but only for the TLM and only people who have been attending it for years :).
Reply
#28
(12-13-2015, 02:00 PM)Optatus Cleary Wrote: Before I ever met a married priest, the idea bothered me greatly. I felt like it was a betrayal of tradition and a supreme oddity, and that the priests family would be "parish royalty" above everyone else.

I have now met married Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Melkite, and Anglican Ordinariate priests, and I have a much better image of it. The families are generally wonderful, and they never seem to overshadow the priest or dominate the parish/mission. And as a married man, there are some things I have found a married priest better able to advise me on than most celibate priests I know (not that this is universal...I wouldn't refuse advice from a celibate priest, but just an observation based on experience.)

However, in the mainstream Latin church, I think it would be disastrous for several reasons:
1. The church simply isn't set up for it.  Latin diocese expect priests to be able to move when ordered, to say several masses per Sunday, (in my area) to handle one small town parish and multiple rural missions, etc. All this would be difficult for a married man.
2. Not to start a discussion on feminism, etc, but I think in the mainstream Novus Ordo Latin church, you would get a very different type of priest's wife much of the time.  There is a big difference between a culture where the role of presbytera/khouria, etc. is well defined in relationship to the role of the priest, and one where it is not.
3. As a novelty to the Latin Church, it would attract the wrong kind of men: those who love novelty.
4. Seminary training is an issue. I'm not sure how the Easterners get around it, either. But in the Latin Church, it would be extraordinarily difficult for a married man to attend seminary. I fear the amount of formation and training would be decreased to accommodate work, time with family, etc.

My (tongue-in-cheek) solution: allow married priests in the Latin Church, but only for the TLM and only people who have been attending it for years :).

This is one of those solutions for a non-existent problem. Precisely what these Franciscan Synods are so good at doing.

I still think that to judge a tradition as from above is moved by the same sort of hubris that produced the NO.

Reply
#29
(12-13-2015, 04:17 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: Why?  Also, why now?  People have been having sex for a very long time.  How come it is now so irresistible that it's OK to make what, at the very least, has the appearance of being a concession to the popular and erroneous belief that it's unreasonable to ask someone to be celibate?  I have known a few lay men who said they would love to be priests, if the Church would only relax the celibacy rule.  What kind of priest would that be?  Men who are willing to lay down everything- except sex.  They would make horrible priests- every single one of them.

Maybe they didn't get the call until after they were married?
Reply
#30
(12-13-2015, 09:25 AM)Might_4_Right Wrote: I think where you might be confused is you think that celibacy is equal to continence, that is abstaining from sexual intercourse, but its not. Celibacy just means unmarried. You see. It's not that allowing for married pirest means that those married men are some kind of sex feends. They just restrict the intimete moments with one women within the bounds of the Sacrament of Holy Matramony.

Celibate has a narrower meaning in English than it does in French.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)