A Priest, A Nun, and Their Son

[MichaelFilo]

The 24 hour rule is what it is, I believe. Of course, you are making a wonderfully evident mistake. We could argue the prudence of reintroducing marriage into the priesthood at this time, but we cannot argue that it would bring in many more priests (and by we, I don't mean you and I, since we agree it would be imprudent). In fact, was it not the reason it was instated in the 11th century, since there were too many priests and the fear was that there should be some way to keep the numbers in check without infringing on tradition. Well, then, if the very nature of the discipline is to lessen the number of priests, an increased number of priests would mean that you would have more than 1 priest to a parish. This obviously means that more than 1 priest is available to offer the daily Mass, and that would mean that they could consumate their marriages but abstain when it was their turn to say the Mass the next day. No biggy.

God bless,
Mikey

Edited October 17, 2005 by MichaelFilo

[Aloysius]

if you really believed that THAT many people would answer the call... then sure.

are you saying that as soon as we have married priests, our average priest per parish would skyrocket from about 2 to SEVEN?

lol, I guess it could be managed around 4 or 5...

err... now that I think of it, each priest could just have a third of the week where he could consumate with his wife. that would be such an awkward meeting... "alright guys, let's work out the schedule so we know when each of us gets to have sex with our wives"



lol...

[cmotherofpirl]

[MichaelFilo]

It would probably go more like "Ok guys, lets work out the schedule to see when each person will be saying Mass". No need to make a joke of it. Even if it was only 3 or 4, this is a major improvement, and it would be feasible. No joke, the arguement holds no water. Making celibacy vows optional again would improve the situation during a shortage of priests. Sometimes, quality must be sacraficed for quantity. The Churches job is to save souls, not to hold on to traditions that lose them. Not having a chance to go to confession because priests are tied up all week except for half an hour before one mass on sunday is rediculous. I'd like to have a priest who does daily confessions. That would be possible if we had more.

But like I said, it wouldn't be prudent to give the world any more footing within the Church.

God bless,
Mikey

[MichaelFilo]

To be fair, my parish priest said this, "priests live in the conditions of the neighborhood around them". Which means, if you live in a suburb, you should live in the same way. If you live in a missionary camp, you probably shouldn't be the rich bastion of jealousy. Anyways, a common mistake made is that once marriage is allowed, all the priests will get married. Obviously, we already have priests who want to take a vow of celibacy. Why should we suppose that all preists would end up marrying? I would doubt it very much. Besides, whats your point, priests have lived in poverty with the poorest of the poor in antiquity; why is it so wrong now?

God bless,
Mikey

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Oct 14 2005, 07:19 PM']Actually Dan, there were married priests until the 11th Century.  Celibacy vows did exist, but they were strictly optional.
[right][snapback]758840[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I seem to remember from Catholic Tradition courses in high school that at least part of the reason for instituting mandatory priestly celibacy was in response to the growing corruption resulting from nepotism in the parishes and diocese. For those of you w/o a dictionary handy, nepotism is basically where someone in a state of power (economic, social, religious, etc.) is able to use his/her influence to ensure that his power transfers to his son/daughter. Which, in the case of the often exorbitantly wealthy dark ages church could be a problem when bishops/priests were having sons who became bishops/priests like their fathers. Anway, my point is that our faith is defined by both scripture and tradition, so if a change in tradition (i.e. mandatory celibacy being inforced rather than 1100 years of OPTIONAL celibacy) was instituted to address a specific abuse, shouldn't that change in tradition be re-evaluated when the abuse (and society) has changed. In this regard, I dont' necessarily agree that a return to optional celibacy would be an INSULT to tradition. After all, 1100 years of tradition is longer time than the 900 years that have passed with mandatory celibacy.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

I wouldn't like a married priesthood... for several reasons. Most of all, I think it would introduce more problems than it would solve. I like the celibate priesthood for the Latin rite... we have married priests in the Eastern rites of the Church, so it balances out.

[Craftygrl06]

I realize someone has already brought up the fact that Priest must be celibate 24 hours before celebrating Mass anyway, but isn't celebrating Mass once a day required? I thought it was and if so then you do the math...the marraige wouldn't be open to life so it would be no good anyway.

Second point I agree with Fides_et_Ratio, I wouldn't like a married priesthood. I think it would destroy the idea of the priest as "father" to all his congregation. Think about it, if father already has children of his own I think i'd feel second rate.

[Sixtina87]

[quote name='musturde' date='Oct 14 2005, 04:48 PM']If he really wanted to marry, he should have joined an eastern rite...btw what's the point of a nun being married? Why would a person want to be a nun if she's married anyways? Wouldnt that be the equivalence of a monk being married?
[right][snapback]758693[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


i just came across this thread and thought to read it to see what the topic was leaning towards, i agree, whats the point of being a nun and hvaing a fmaily to tkae care of, there is just no sence in it!!!!! i was told by a Carmelite this weekend, that all women are called to be a wife and mother. they can be a wife and mother as a spouse of christ or just being married to a man!!!!! What ever way they're both rewarding. but i feelt he religious life is more centered on christ...Duh but mostly on the care of others and a main focus on the gifts that god has given.
And as for celebrating mass once a day, Is it required??? Not really, it jsut depends on ones ministry.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Craftygrl06' date='Oct 19 2005, 10:31 AM']I realize someone has already brought up the fact that Priest must be celibate 24 hours before celebrating Mass anyway, but isn't celebrating Mass once a day required? I thought it was and if so then you do the math...the marraige wouldn't be open to life so it would be no good anyway.

Second point I agree with Fides_et_Ratio, I wouldn't like a married priesthood.  I think it would destroy the idea of the priest as "father" to all his congregation.  Think about it,  if father already has children of his own I think i'd feel second rate.
[right][snapback]763589[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I have never seen proof that married priests must abstain from their wives before celebrating Mass. Lovemaking involves the husband and wife and God, so why would you abstain?

[Cre8d4Youth]

Ok, before I get ambushed I want to clarify my stance on this. I appreciate and respect the celibacy of unmarried priests. As a married father of four that is heavily involved in youth ministry I can attest caring for a family and working with youth is totally time consuming. I cannot physically give myself totally to one or the other. Which is frustrating. I can only imagine the problem would be exponentially more problematic for a married priest. But I don't suppose to say they could not overcome and still be effective.

I think it would be nice to allow priests to marry, but I'm not about to try and "lobby" the Catholic church to aquiesce to my wishes. I'm not going to try and convince others that my way holds more wisdom than that of the Church. I know what I know, and I know that historically priests were allowed to marry, once, period.

"That's all I have to day about that."

[JamesTheYounger]

I think that the point is that men must be made worthy of the priesthood not the other way around. And anyway there is no empirical evidence to support the idea that giving priests the ability to marry would increase the number of priests. . According to pureloveclub.com the number of seminarians in America has increased from 22000 to 35000 in the last 2 decades and in africa there has been an increase of 238.5% and in Asia 124.01% in the last 20 years.If you look at the eastern rite churches they dont have such great numbers of priests
I personally am more attracted to a celibate priesthood than to one that permits marriage.

[Dust's Sister]

In my opinion I don't think nun's should be able to marry, neither should priests. That's the sacrifice people are willing to give, and if you are not willing to sacfrifice that, then your not called to be a nun or priest.

Unless of course you've changed religions, but here's another question, since we're allowed married converts to be priests, then have we allowed married nuns? I've never heard of that.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Oct 14 2005, 06:19 PM']Actually Dan, there were married priests until the 11th Century.  Celibacy vows did exist, but they were strictly optional.
[right][snapback]758840[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The first explicitly documented instance of legislated obligatory celibacy in the Church that I'm aware of is a bit older than that. Namely the councils of Ancyra and Neocaesarea between 314-325. And there are even more ancient Armenian canons that speak of obligatory clerical celibacy. There are also indications from patristic authors of this phenomenon, the concensus of which, according to my knowledge, seems to indicate that this was a practice believed in these early centuries to be of apostolic origin.

While certainly the discipline in the church of Rome in the last thousand years has a different landscape than in the patristic era, but there have been "official" disciplines of celibacy for certain offices in certain churches throughout history, and this yet remains the case. The Roman church has a unique charism which involves a predominantly celibate clergy, but the Catholic Church as a whole has never been without married priests, just as it has never been without celibate priests. It is a practice instituted by Christ and persisting through the entire history of the Church from the apostolic age onward.

It is unfortunate that people today tend to see celibacy as a negative rather than a positive, as something that should not be, rather than a gift.

Quotations:

[i]If a priest marries, let him be removed from his order; but if he commit fornication or adultery, let him be altogether cast out [i.e. of communion] and put to penance.[/i] - Neocaesarea, Canon 1, c. 315 AD

[i]The law of continence is the same for the ministers of the altar, for the bishops and for the priests; when they were (still) lay people or lectors, they could freely take a wife and beget children. But once they have reached the ranks mentioned above, what had been permitted is no longer so[/i]. - Pope Leo the Great, c.458AD

[i]But people might say: if it is permitted and good to marry, why should priests not be authorized to take wives? In other words, why should ordained men not be permitted to be united [to wives]?[/i] - Ambrosiaster, ~366AD (btw, he frames this question in order to expose it as heterodox)

An even earlier source, the Philosophoumena of Hippolytus of Rome, who died around 235AD, speaks of a controversy in which Pope Callistus is accused of strange innovations in church discipline with his laxity towards clerical celibacy. This implictly affirms the normality of clerical celibacy in the early third century, at least in the church of that region; and I'm being conservative in that conclusion.

[Winchester]

A priest, a nun and their son walk into a bar...