Priest Celibacy - why? For what reason?

[Uncle Fester]

Vow of celibacy?

It's the perfect cover.

[Terry in Crapchester]

What on Earth would be so troublesome about married catholic priests, in 2006? Let's hear something creditable.

Nothing to me, but I'm not Catholic.

I am, and while I can't speak for all Catholics, I don't have a problem with it in the least. Truth be told, at this point I think the discussion ought to be driven more by practical concerns than by interpretation of Paul's theology, given the historical context Babs pointed out as well as the fact that Paul's opinions weren't exactly majority opinions even during his lifetime. Here's why I think priests should be allowed to marry:

• At every Mass you hear about the decline in priestly vocations, and the evidence would appear to bear out the fact that they're not just crying in the rain on that point. Many parishes have had to close or merge, there aren't nearly as many Sunday Masses said anymore as there were when I was a kid, and many parishes, which once had two priests assigned, now have only one priest assigned who, btw, is also assigned to another parish. Btw, in the diocese where I live, the average age of priests is over 50.
• Further on the point above, of the three vows required of Catholic priests (poverty, celibacy and obedience), there's a case to be made that the Vow of Obedience is the most difficult. I'm not saying that I agree with that position, but there are those who espouse it. Yet it doesn't seem to be the Vow of Obedience that is responsible for the continuing long-term decline in vocations to the Catholic priesthood. Again, in the interests of full disclosure, I point out that as a child, I wanted to be a priest, but gave up that idea once I hit puberty and discovered the opposite sex.
• Many married Catholics who find their marriage in trouble turn to their parish priest for help. Yet a parish priest, who has never been married and therefore has no practical advice to give, and who in all likelihood has not completed any specialized training in marriage and family counseling, is no more, and quite possibly less, qualified to help you in that regard than is your next-door neighbor.

Again, I don't see a decent practical reason for continuing the Vow of Celibacy. As I said before, it is an anachronism which at one time was probably necessary for the protection of the Church, but that isn't the case any longer.

[jiminphilly]

What on Earth would be so troublesome about married catholic priests, in 2006? Let's hear something creditable.

Nothing to me, but I'm not Catholic.

I am, and while I can't speak for all Catholics, I don't have a problem with it in the least. Truth be told, at this point I think the discussion ought to be driven more by practical concerns than by interpretation of Paul's theology, given the historical context Babs pointed out as well as the fact that Paul's opinions weren't exactly majority opinions even during his lifetime. Here's why I think priests should be allowed to marry:

• At every Mass you hear about the decline in priestly vocations, and the evidence would appear to bear out the fact that they're not just crying in the rain on that point. Many parishes have had to close or merge, there aren't nearly as many Sunday Masses said anymore as there were when I was a kid, and many parishes, which once had two priests assigned, now have only one priest assigned who, btw, is also assigned to another parish. Btw, in the diocese where I live, the average age of priests is over 50.
• Further on the point above, of the three vows required of Catholic priests (poverty, celibacy and obedience), there's a case to be made that the Vow of Obedience is the most difficult. I'm not saying that I agree with that position, but there are those who espouse it. Yet it doesn't seem to be the Vow of Obedience that is responsible for the continuing long-term decline in vocations to the Catholic priesthood. Again, in the interests of full disclosure, I point out that as a child, I wanted to be a priest, but gave up that idea once I hit puberty and discovered the opposite sex.
• Many married Catholics who find their marriage in trouble turn to their parish priest for help. Yet a parish priest, who has never been married and therefore has no practical advice to give, and who in all likelihood has not completed any specialized training in marriage and family counseling, is no more, and quite possibly less, qualified to help you in that regard than is your next-door neighbor.

Again, I don't see a decent practical reason for continuing the Vow of Celibacy. As I said before, it is an anachronism which at one time was probably necessary for the protection of the Church, but that isn't the case any longer.

Couple things-

A catholic priest is not required to take a vow of poverty. If they are in a religious order they may be required to do so but your run-of-the-mill diocesen (sp?) priest is not required to do so.

There is an intersting loop-hole in the catholic doctrine concerning marriage and priesthood. If an Anglican priest who is married chooses to become a catholic priest there are provisions made that allow him to do this and be able to continue to roll in the sack with his ole lady until she croaks in which case he has to then remain celibate.

The church will disguise their exceptions in biblical mumbo jumbo but essentially they've been telling themselves they're right and everyone else is wrong for far too long to change anything. It'll take the actual body of the church.. ie practicing catholics to actually bring about any change to the issue of women priests and allowing priests to marry.

[RadioFan]

Rack Terry.

Solid.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Not sure why this didn't get moved to the Theology forum, but . . .

Nothing to me, but I'm not Catholic.

I am, and while I can't speak for all Catholics, I don't have a problem with it in the least. Truth be told, at this point I think the discussion ought to be driven more by practical concerns than by interpretation of Paul's theology, given the historical context Babs pointed out as well as the fact that Paul's opinions weren't exactly majority opinions even during his lifetime. Here's why I think priests should be allowed to marry:

• At every Mass you hear about the decline in priestly vocations, and the evidence would appear to bear out the fact that they're not just crying in the rain on that point. Many parishes have had to close or merge, there aren't nearly as many Sunday Masses said anymore as there were when I was a kid, and many parishes, which once had two priests assigned, now have only one priest assigned who, btw, is also assigned to another parish. Btw, in the diocese where I live, the average age of priests is over 50.
• Further on the point above, of the three vows required of Catholic priests (poverty, celibacy and obedience), there's a case to be made that the Vow of Obedience is the most difficult. I'm not saying that I agree with that position, but there are those who espouse it. Yet it doesn't seem to be the Vow of Obedience that is responsible for the continuing long-term decline in vocations to the Catholic priesthood. Again, in the interests of full disclosure, I point out that as a child, I wanted to be a priest, but gave up that idea once I hit puberty and discovered the opposite sex.
• Many married Catholics who find their marriage in trouble turn to their parish priest for help. Yet a parish priest, who has never been married and therefore has no practical advice to give, and who in all likelihood has not completed any specialized training in marriage and family counseling, is no more, and quite possibly less, qualified to help you in that regard than is your next-door neighbor.

Again, I don't see a decent practical reason for continuing the Vow of Celibacy. As I said before, it is an anachronism which at one time was probably necessary for the protection of the Church, but that isn't the case any longer.

Couple things-

A catholic priest is not required to take a vow of poverty. If they are in a religious order they may be required to do so but your run-of-the-mill diocesen (sp?) priest is not required to do so.

I've always understood that all Catholic priests were required to take a vow of poverty, but it's possible I could be wrong. In any event, as it was explained to me, the phrase "vow of poverty" is somewhat misleading. It does not require a priest to live in abject poverty (from even the most cursory of observations, the overwhelming majority of them do not). Rather, the vow of poverty essentially requires that a priest either do or refrain from doing three things: not use his position to acquire wealth (seems unlikely now, although this was a problem during the Middle Ages); own little more than the clothing on his back (e.g., a priest cannot own a car, but can have access to a car if the car is owned by some other entity and lent to the priest for his personal use); and provide financial assistance to the extent he is able to another whom the priest knows to have financial need and who has requested financial assistance (not an open invitation to put your hand out to the Church; rather, it's intended for someone who is about to be evicted or unable to buy food, e.g.).

There is an intersting loop-hole in the catholic doctrine concerning marriage and priesthood. If an Anglican priest who is married chooses to become a catholic priest there are provisions made that allow him to do this and be able to continue to roll in the sack with his ole lady until she croaks in which case he has to then remain celibate.

True, although it happens so rarely that the Church also does not see a significant need to close it.

The church will disguise their exceptions in biblical mumbo jumbo but essentially they've been telling themselves they're right and everyone else is wrong for far too long to change anything. It'll take the actual body of the church.. ie practicing catholics to actually bring about any change to the issue of women priests and allowing priests to marry.

Agreed.

[BSmack]

The church will disguise their exceptions in biblical mumbo jumbo but essentially they've been telling themselves they're right and everyone else is wrong for far too long to change anything. It'll take the actual body of the church.. ie practicing catholics to actually bring about any change to the issue of women priests and allowing priests to marry.

The body of the Church (at least in western countries) doesn't give a rats ass about Church doctrine. They just care about showing up every Saturday or Sunday, feeling good about themselves and then going back out into the world and ignoring any Church teaching that happens to inconvenience them.

[PSUFAN]

They just care about showing up every Saturday or Sunday, feeling good about themselves and then going back out into the world and ignoring any Church teaching that happens to inconvenience them.

$$$

[PSUFAN]

Also, rack Terry and jim. I'm just not seeing the practical necessity of the vow of celibacy - moreover, we're avoiding for the moment what negative repercussions such a vow has wrought upon the populace.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Also, rack Terry and jim. I'm just not seeing the practical necessity of the vow of celibacy -

The problem isn't the vow of celibacy. The problem is that they are ignoring that vow.

Celibacy does not authorize one to go balls deep in altar boys.

Not minimizing that problem, but it does apply to only a small minority of priests. The vow of celibacy, on the other hand, has had the impact of minimizing vocations to the priesthood and resulting in a critical shortage of priests.

[Diogenes]

The body of the Church (at least in western countries) doesn't give a rats ass about Church doctrine.

$$$

FTFY.

And the 'shortage of preists' is, coincidently, also a western phenomenon. Ditto for the problem of pederasts joining the priesthood

Possibly the actual problem is an excess of western Catholics who don't even believe in Catholic doctrine.

Either way, the Vatican isn't going to dispense with doctrine to appease apostacy anytime soon.

[Mister Bushice]

This just in:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060308/ap_ ... se_spokane

Top U.S. Bishop Accused of Sex Abuse

Wed Mar 8, 6:29 PM ET

SPOKANE, Wash. - A woman has filed a claim that she was sexually abused more than 40 years ago by Bishop William Skylstad, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops and leader of the Spokane Diocese.

Skylstad issued a statement Wednesday categorically denying the accusation, saying he has not violated the vow of celibacy he took 47 years ago.

The claim was filed against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Spokane on Dec. 27 by a woman who said she was under the age of 18 when Skylstad sexually abused her at St. Patrick's Parish and at Gonzaga University from December 1961 to December 1964.

Skylstad was a student at Gonzaga University from 1962-1966 and taught mathematics to students at Mater Cleri Seminary at Colbert, north of Spokane.

The diocese is one of three in the nation that filed for bankruptcy protection to deal with claims of sexual abuse by clergy. Skylstad last month offered to settle with 75 victims for $45.7 million.

The woman's claim was filed as a result of the bankruptcy "proof of claims" process, the diocese said.

Victims of clergy sexual abuse have until Friday to file claims. Greg Arpin, an attorney representing the diocese, said there were a total of 135 claims as of Wednesday morning, including the original 75 who would be covered by the settlement.

The woman's claim was first reported Wednesday by the Spokesman-Review newspaper of Spokane.

It is unclear under the reforms American bishops adopted in 2002 for responding to abuse claims whether Skylstad should temporarily step down while his case is being investigated.

The policy requires Catholic officials to determine whether there is "sufficient evidence" supporting the allegations against a cleric before they take him out of public ministry while a full review is conducted under
Vatican oversight.

[Diogenes]

The woman's claim was filed as a result of the bankruptcy "proof of claims" process, the diocese said.

Victims of clergy sexual abuse have until Friday to file claims. Greg Arpin, an attorney representing the diocese, said there were a total of 135 claims as of Wednesday morning, including the original 75 who would be covered by the settlement.

The woman's claim was first reported Wednesday by the Spokesman-Review newspaper of Spokane.

Just in the nick of time.

Not that this has anything to do with the supposed topic...

[Terry in Crapchester]

And the 'shortage of preists' is, coincidently, also a western phenomenon.

Of course, in the eastern world, Catholics are a distinct minority. Ya think maybe, just maybe, that has something to do with that?

Either way, the Vatican isn't going to dispense with doctrine to appease apostacy anytime soon.

Somebody who's not Catholic is talking about apostacy?

[jiminphilly]

And the 'shortage of preists' is, coincidently, also a western phenomenon. Ditto for the problem of pederasts joining the priesthood

Western as in just the US? You're wrong.
You think Ped's are only joining the priesthood in the US and not in Africa, South America, or even Asia? What makes you think this? Because it's not as reported? Why do you think that is? Look how long it's taken for some people to come forward just to admit they've been abused. The scandle in Philly is huge.. and those who are coming foward have waited 20+ years.

Possibly the actual problem is an excess of western Catholics who don't even believe in Catholic doctrine.

Or possibly because they have this religious institution telling them what a sin is and how they should repent all the while they're either fondling your kids in the rectory or covering it up.

Either way, the Vatican isn't going to dispense with doctrine to appease apostacy anytime soon.

The demographics of the catholic church in the US is changing rapidly. They'd better pay close attention to this.

[Diogenes]

And the 'shortage of preists' is, coincidently, also a western phenomenon.

Of course, in the eastern world, Catholics are a distinct minority. Ya think maybe, just maybe, that has something to do with that?

It seems to be doing quite well in latin america, for example.

Amd no, I don't believe that nations which never embrace Vatican II, the sexual revolution and homosexuality as a viable 'alternative lifestyle' to begin with have the same problem.

Either way, the Vatican isn't going to dispense with doctrine to appease apostacy anytime soon.

Somebody who's not Catholic is talking about apostacy?[/quote]

Absplutly.

I looked into the Church (and possibly the priesthood ) when I was a teenager prompted by some friends, had discussions with a Jesuit, bottom line, I couldn't accept the Papal infalibilty doctrine, among other things.

So I never joined.

If you don't believe in Catholicism, why remain a Catholic?

[SunCoastSooner]

If you don't believe in Catholicism, why remain a Catholic?

He has a point here. There so many denominations of Christianity now that I am sure there is one more befitting your beliefs TiC. Just Sayin'.

Damn I hate agreeing with Dio, makes me feel dirty inside. ;) :D

[Diogenes]

Try the Lutherans.

Indulgences were a smokescreen, Martin was just wantin to get laid.

[PSUFAN]

What's so bad about that? He was a man with a healthy sex drive. I'm not so sure it's wise to prefer folks who are totally and freakishly denying their sexuality as clergy.

[Diogenes]

What's so bad about that? He was a man with a healthy sex drive. I'm not so sure it's wise to prefer folks who are totally and freakishly denying their sexuality as clergy.

There is a difference between controling one's sexuality and denying it.

So again, do you have a problem with celibacy in general, as opposed to a problem with the Catholic Church?

You consider anyone who doesn't run around trying to get laid at all costs 'denying their sexuality'?

Are kids who decide to actually postpone sex until they are older, or couples who decide to wait until the honeymoon 'brainwashed freaks'?

[SunCoastSooner]

... or couples who decide to wait until the honeymoon 'brainwashed freaks'?

Yes. :D

[Terry in Crapchester]

Hold on a second, there, Dio . . .

Amd no, I don't believe that nations which never embrace Vatican II, the sexual revolution and homosexuality as a viable 'alternative lifestyle' to begin with have the same problem.

If you don't believe in Catholicism, why remain a Catholic?

Let me see if I've got this straight: opposing the priestly vow of celibacy is tantamount to "[not believing] in Catholicism," yet failing to embrace Vatican II (which, last I checked, was a Catholic conference) is consistent with Catholicism?



Vatican II is every bit as valid a Church teaching as is the vow of celibacy. And of course, neither is central to Catholic ideology. The only difference, of course, is that the vow of celibacy and the doctrine of Papal infallibility are the things that most noticeably (although not exclusively) separate the Catholic Church from mainstream Protestant denominations.

And fwiw, my mother, who is 67 years old, also disagrees with the vow of celibacy. But for her, leaving the Catholic Church would be a sin on par with murder (for many older Catholics, people are either Catholic or heathen, in that regard older Catholics aren't worlds apart from the fundies). I'm not saying I agree with her take on leaving the Church, but then again, she's certainly not the only one who feels that way.

As Jim in Philly says, change will come on this matter, eventually. And it will come from the grass roots.

[PSUFAN]

There is a difference between controling one's sexuality and denying it.

So again, do you have a problem with celibacy in general, as opposed to a problem with the Catholic Church?

You consider anyone who doesn't run around trying to get laid at all costs 'denying their sexuality'?

Are kids who decide to actually postpone sex until they are older, or couples who decide to wait until the honeymoon 'brainwashed freaks'?

Waiting on sex for a spousal partner is a lot different than swearing off of it for the rest of your life.

I simply don't understand the mandated vow of celibacy. What practical purpose does it serve? I've never seen a single one creditably defined.

[Diogenes]

Vatican II is every bit as valid a Church teaching as is the vow of celibacy. And of course, neither is central to Catholic ideology. The only difference, of course, is that the vow of celibacy and the doctrine of Papal infallibility are the things that most noticeably (although not exclusively) separate the Catholic Church from mainstream Protestant denominations.

So if you have a problem with being 'seperate from mainstream protestant denominations' why remain Catholic?

[Diogenes]

There is a difference between controling one's sexuality and denying it.

So again, do you have a problem with celibacy in general, as opposed to a problem with the Catholic Church?

You consider anyone who doesn't run around trying to get laid at all costs 'denying their sexuality'?

Are kids who decide to actually postpone sex until they are older, or couples who decide to wait until the honeymoon 'brainwashed freaks'?

Waiting on sex for a spousal partner is a lot different than swearing off of it for the rest of your life.

I simply don't understand the mandated vow of celibacy. What practical purpose does it serve? I've never seen a single one creditably defined.

To avoid having a wife and children, in order to dedicate your life totally to your ministry.

That is a practical and legitimate reason, whether you, I or Terry agree with it or not.

[rozy]

The church will disguise their exceptions in biblical mumbo jumbo but essentially they've been telling themselves they're right and everyone else is wrong for far too long to change anything. It'll take the actual body of the church.. ie practicing catholics to actually bring about any change to the issue of women priests and allowing priests to marry.

The body of the Church (at least in western countries) doesn't give a rats ass about Church doctrine. They just care about showing up every Saturday or Sunday, feeling good about themselves and then going back out into the world and ignoring any Church teaching that happens to inconvenience them.

I'm not Catholic. No where even close to Catholic. I could answer PSU's original question but it would tangent things in a total different direction that I just really could care less about doing. That being said, as much as I would love to FTFY your post and insert Catholic as the fifth word, I can't. Your post is nails straight across the board...

But Jerry Falwell does appreciate your unwitting RACK. :wink:

[Terry in Crapchester]

Vatican II is every bit as valid a Church teaching as is the vow of celibacy. And of course, neither is central to Catholic ideology. The only difference, of course, is that the vow of celibacy and the doctrine of Papal infallibility are the things that most noticeably (although not exclusively) separate the Catholic Church from mainstream Protestant denominations.

So if you have a problem with being 'seperate from mainstream protestant denominations' why remain Catholic?

I don't.

And btw, theologically speaking, the doctrine of transubstantiation is a far more important difference between Catholics and mainstream Protestants than is the priestly vow of celibacy. However, it is not as noticeable to the casual observer.

I believe in transubstantiation, just don't see how the vow of celibacy benefits the Church.

[PSUFAN]

Dio and other raise a point that I am well familiar with.

My parents are catholics who don't spend a lot of time peering into doctrine. They are a part of the church because, in my father's case, it is a valuable community and it hearkens to tradition. My mother is involved because she is moved to works of charity.

In her case, I have asked her many times why she feels it necessary to belong to an institution that clings to so many things she and I agree are deplorable. After all, she wouldn't have to cease her works of charity if she left the church. She could join the local Quaker church, and become involved in their charitable works. She could undertake them on her own. There are MANY options. I just can't understand her staying with the Catholic organization, or what the reasons are.

I don't much respect my father's views on the church. He refuses to examine them. He feels comfy wrapped in "tradition"...never mind what those traditions mean, why they are perpetuated, or what his actual role in them is.

[Diogenes]

Grandpa was a carpenter
He built houses stores and banks
Chain smoked camel cigarettes
And hammered nails in planks
He was level on the level
And shaved even every door
And voted for eisenhower
’cause lincoln won the war.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Suggested TV viewing for anyone interested in this subject, regardless of your position: God or the Girl, which I saw last night on A&E (9:00 p.m. Eastern, another episode at 10:00 p.m.). The title is a bit extreme imho, and some of the situations seem a bit melodramatic and/or contrived (e.g., one person carries a cross while camping because he wanted to experience what Jesus experienced; another who is on the fence about a long-distance relationship with a girl in Germany travels to Germany for World Youth Day, then phones the girl and tells her he "might" try to find her), but on the whole, a pretty balanced exploration of the plights of four young men who are struggling with the question of whether they have been called to the priesthood. And this is coming from someone who is generally not a fan of "reality" TV. These situations, of course, are far more "real" than most of what you'll see on "reality" TV.

As for this . . .

Try the Lutherans.

Indulgences were a smokescreen, Martin was just wantin to get laid.

I accept both transubstantiation and the concept of purgatory. I believe Luther disagreed with both.

[Tom In VA]

I saw both episodes last night. You're correct.

Dan - Dude was carrying the cross because his mentor "suggested" it. I can see him carrying it through.

Joe - Was in Germany, got dumped. My money is on him saying "NO" to the priesthood.

Mike - Same. His girl is cute and he's another one that's doing it because of pressure to please his father, who's dead. He's out.

Last Dude - Don't remember his name, but apparently gave up a lucrative career and the reality of that is setting in. But I see him carrying it out.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I saw both episodes last night. You're correct.

Dan - Dude was carrying the cross because his mentor "suggested" it. I can see him carrying it through.

Joe - Was in Germany, got dumped. My money is on him saying "NO" to the priesthood.

Mike - Same. His girl is cute and he's another one that's doing it because of pressure to please his father, who's dead. He's out.

Last Dude - Don't remember his name, but apparently gave up a lucrative career and the reality of that is setting in. But I see him carrying it out.

Last Dude's name is Steve. Tend to agree with you on these.

Seems that Joe is in it mostly to please his mother, since she wanted one of her sons to be a priest.

[Diogenes]

Is this anything like the show where they dumped Amish kids in the big city to see what would happen?

If transubstantiation is important, the position of the Eastern Orthodox churches is actually not to differant from the Catholics...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

The Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, along with the Assyrian Church of the East, agree that the bread and wine truly do actually become the body and blood of Christ. However, they have in general refrained from philosophical speculation such as that which found expression in the theory of transubstantiation, and instead usually rely on the status of the doctrine as a "mystery," something known by divine revelation that could not have been arrived at by reason without revelation. Accordingly, preferring to say too little about the details and remain firmly within Holy Tradition, than to say too much and possibly deviate from the truth, they speak simply of a "change" (in Greek μεταβολή) of the bread and wine. Orthodox theologians generally speak in terms of what is called metousiosis, which is used to speak of a great mystical change of essence, not only of the bread and wine, but also in those who partake of the Eucharist.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Is this anything like the show where they dumped Amish kids in the big city to see what would happen?

I didn't see that one, but this show isn't taking any of these guys out of their everyday element.

If transubstantiation is important, . . .

I'd say it's far more important to Catholic doctrine than is prestly celibacy. Certainly, it would be much less easily changed.