Calibacy For Priests - Vatican Secretary Of State

[AccountDeleted]

The incoming Secretary of State re-opens the question about the discussion of celibacy... what is your view? http://fb.me/RXT6I8uA

 

 

Just to start it off- I read a sci-fi book set in the future, and in the story diocesans priests were allowed to marry but not religious priests. Do you think this might be one solution? Those men who want celibacy could join an order, and those who want to get married could become diocesan priests.

 

Thoughts????

 

PS - Stupid keyboard -- misspelled celibacy - it wasn't me, I swear it! :lol:

 

 

Edited September 11, 2013 by nunsense

[arfink]

This isn't terribly surprising to me. In some of the Eastern churches it is already relatively common for priests to be married, and it's true that celibacy for priests has always been a matter of tradition rather than dogma.

 

I suspect that the tradition of celibate priesthood will always continue to be encouraged, especially in the Roman Catholic portions of the church, although I personally wouldn't be too concerned if this began to change.

[John Ryan]

The celibacy of the priesthood is one of the few issues I am very conservative on. I tend to understand the human experience from the vantage point of the psychoanalytic tradition. In other words, I believe that our libidinal and aggressive energies are the driving force of our human existence. I read the idea of "civilization" in light of Sigmund Freud and Norbert Elias, in such that it is a sublimation (or repression) of our sex and aggressive drives. Therefore, I think that priests should have a highly sublimated libido. In a world with overwhelming violence and licentiousness, we need a class of people who are the shepherds who have overcome these Id energies. It is not that I think sexuality is inherently bad like St. Augustine. Sexuality is wonderful and beautiful and the world would be ghastly sterile without it. It is the force of life itself! Yet, I think we need priests to show us what highly sublimated libidinal energy looks like. We need the Holy Matrimony model of love and we need the celibate model of love. If we remove the celibacy requirement for priests, than the celibate ideal will die a slow and painful death and we will lose the dialectic.

[Nihil Obstat]

Seems like my post did not appear. :P Anyway.

 

I think such a model, with a celibate religious priesthood and married secular priesthood, is possible, and more likely than an entirely married priesthood. It makes more sense than that, at least. But, the custom of the Roman Church for a long time has been a celibate priesthood, and all things being equal, it should remain that way. Personally, I do not think that current arguments in favour of a married priesthood are compelling enough to justify changing our customs.

[arfink]

The celibacy of the priesthood is one of the few issues I am very conservative on. I tend to understand the human experience from the vantage point of the psychoanalytic tradition. In other words, I believe that our libidinal and aggressive energies are the driving force of our human existence. I read the idea of "civilization" in light of Sigmund Freud and Norbert Elias, in such that it is a sublimation (or repression) of our sex and aggressive drives. Therefore, I think that priests should have a highly sublimated libido. In a world with overwhelming violence and licentiousness, we need a class of people who are the shepherds who have overcome these Id energies. It is not that I think sexuality is inherently bad like St. Augustine. Sexuality is wonderful and beautiful and the world would be ghastly sterile without it. It is the force of life itself! Yet, I think we need priests to show us what highly sublimated libidinal energy looks like. We need the Holy Matrimony model of love and we need the celibate model of love. If we remove the celibacy requirement for priests, than the celibate ideal will die a slow and painful death and we will lose the dialectic.

 

I generally agree, however, I think it's a bit obnoxious to talk of sublimation of libido, when in reality the Church calls for Chastity. And believe it or not, sex in the context of marriage and proper married chastity can actually be much more difficult in today's world than complete celibacy. After all, even the secular world sees that it is easier to be closed to sex than to be open to life.

[arfink]

Seems like my post did not appear. :P Anyway.

 

I think such a model, with a celibate religious priesthood and married secular priesthood, is possible, and more likely than an entirely married priesthood. It makes more sense than that, at least. But, the custom of the Roman Church for a long time has been a celibate priesthood, and all things being equal, it should remain that way. Personally, I do not think that current arguments in favour of a married priesthood are compelling enough to justify changing our customs.

 

This is good also. However, I think that what some people (I'm not sure enough to say for myself) are saying is that it's entirely possible that allowing for a married priesthood could indeed solve some of the problems the presbyterate has. In which case I suppose it would not be a case of all things being equal. But that case would have to be made, and I'm sure the appropriate authorities in Rome will make sure that is the case if they do in fact investigate this matter.

Edited September 11, 2013 by arfink

[Sr. Mary Jeremiah OP]

I would agree with both of the previous replies. Yes, this is in the Orthodox Church.

 

But I think human nature being what it is J. Ryan has a good point. At this time in history, I don't think it would be very helpful to drop the requirement of celibacy. Our society is so sexualized, that it would have drastic repercussions in the Church.

 

I have hear many Episcopalian/Anglican priests say marriage and priesthood are extremely difficult. On the other hand, there are some men who have juggled the two vocations well.

 

It has been the Church's traditional teaching that the priest is wedded to his parish-the Church, the Bishop to his diocese.

 

The problem with "opening" things to discussion is that some will not take "no" for an answer, if that would be the result.

 

Blessings,

Sr. Mary Jeremiah, OP

[Nihil Obstat]

This is good also. However, I think that what some people (I'm not sure enough to say for myself) are saying is that it's entirely possible that allowing for a married priesthood could indeed solve some of the problems the presbyterate has. In which case I suppose it would not be a case of all things being equal. But that case would have to be made, and I'm sure the appropriate authorities in Rome will make sure that is the case if they do in fact investigate this matter.

Agreed. If there were compelling reasons to believe that a married priesthood could directly affect very positive reform in the Church, it certainly could be allowed. Although I would remain leery. :P At this point though, I do not think it would be good for the Church as it is today. It would be seen as a massive liberalization - both by those inside and outside, which is the very last perception of the Church that we need. :P

[Nihil Obstat]

Of course the episcopate would always remain celibate. That is a constant tradition of the Church - east and west - and I do not think it could be open for change.

[arfink]

Agreed. If there were compelling reasons to believe that a married priesthood could directly affect very positive reform in the Church, it certainly could be allowed. Although I would remain leery. :P At this point though, I do not think it would be good for the Church as it is today. It would be seen as a massive liberalization - both by those inside and outside, which is the very last perception of the Church that we need. :P

 

I'm a bit unclear on your last point. Why does the church not wish to be seen in association with liberalization? As in, real liberalization, not this politically correct prudishness masquerading as liberalism in our country...

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm a bit unclear on your last point. Why does the church not wish to be seen in association with liberalization? As in, real liberalization, not this politically correct prudishness masquerading as liberalism in our country...

Liberalization was the wrong word. :P I am a bit distracted. I should have said modernisation, in the context of modernism.

[Selah]

Of course the episcopate would always remain celibate. That is a constant tradition of the Church - east and west - and I do not think it could be open for change.

 

By episcopate I assume you mean the Pope, and or the Patriarchs of different Churches?

[arfink]

By episcopate I assume you mean the Pope, and or the Patriarchs of different Churches?

 

And bishops.

[arfink]

Liberalization was the wrong word. :P I am a bit distracted. I should have said modernisation, in the context of modernism.

 

I'm still not seeing the connection between a married priesthood and modernism (assuming we mean the philosophy of modernism? or something else?)

 

Although, I recall you were speaking more specifically about the church seeming to be associated, rather than actually practicing modernism by approving married priesthood. Can you elaborate on that?

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm still not seeing the connection between a married priesthood and modernism (assuming we mean the philosophy of modernism? or something else?)

 

Although, I recall you were speaking more specifically about the church seeming to be associated, rather than actually practicing modernism by approving married priesthood. Can you elaborate on that?

Basically a perception of modernism/modernization, rather than necessarily modernism per se. The headlines would all be "POPE GIVES IN TO MARRIED PRIESTHOOD DEMANDS", etc.. The perception would be that modern sensibilities 'finally won', that the Church is "finally recognizing modern needs and coming into the modern world", know what I mean? You and I would both know that is not true, but the perception alone would be harmful, especially for those less well-versed and less steeped in the faith.