Calibacy For Priests - Vatican Secretary Of State

[Apotheoun]

I do not really think it has anything to do with patronizing the arts; instead, the ugliness of many modern Roman Catholic parishes has to do with the use of abstract and modern art (or no art at all). New Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are still built with beautiful iconography, and priestly (and episcopal and diaconal) vestments are still quite lovely garments with beautiful embroidery and images.

[Apotheoun]

thanks I read that too.  My statement is correct.

You read what too? My post? Or something else? 

 

And your statement is correct to a point. You just left out the fact that in the West perfect and perpetual continence was the norm for married clergy.

[Jaime]

You read what too? My post? Or something else? 

 

And your statement is correct to a point. You just left out the fact that in the West perfect and perpetual continence was the norm for married clergy.

 

I've read Church history as well.  And thanks for acknowledging that I was correct.  Can't tell you how much I appreciate it
 

[Apotheoun]

I've read Church history as well.  
 

Thanks for the clarification on "what you have read." Your original comment was unclear.

 

 

And thanks for acknowledging that I was correct.  Can't tell you how much I appreciate it
 

No problem. It is always nice when you say something that is correct, even if it was a bit ambiguous. I was happy to clarify the point that you left out (i.e., the part about clerical continence).

Edited September 15, 2013 by Apotheoun

[AugustineA]

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.

 

Really...? I'm currently doing my practicum in clinical psychology, and fruedian psychoanalysis is completely discredited. It's support by nothing save anecdotes from Freud and some of his contemporaries. If we attempted to understand and treat people with that sort of dated theory the whole field would be in shambles.

 

You know once a father brought his child to Freud with a clear cut case of association. He had a horrible experience with a horse as a child and that manifested in serious fears in his adolescence. Freud dismissed the case as a subconscious fear his father was going to castrate him?

 

Really..? 

[Apteka]

The Roman Church, prior to the final establishment of the law of clerical celibacy at the First Lateran Council, did ordain married men to all three of the higher levels of the clergy, but the Roman Church also required perfect and perpetual continence of married clerics beginning sometime in the late 3rd century (see the canons of the Council of Elvira) and this practice was confirmed by decrees of various popes during the 4th century (most prominently Pope St. Siricius). Moreover, perpetual clerical continence (as opposed to the Eastern Christian practice of liturgical continence) was confirmed again in the West in the canons of the various North African synods held during the time of St. Augustine, and those canons entered into the normative canonical tradition of the West at some point after the death of St. Augustine in the 5th century. The North African canons extended perfect and perpetual continence to even several of the lower ranks of the clergy (i.e., to the minor orders).

 

Very interesting. Also of note Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira forbids images in Church:

 

36. Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.

 

http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law/ElviraCanons.htm

[Jaime]

 

Thanks for the clarification on "what you have read." Your original comment was unclear.

 

 

No problem. It is always nice when you say something that is correct, even if it was a bit ambiguous. I was happy to clarify the point that you left out (i.e., the part about clerical continence).

 

 

My original statement was very clear.  I'm sorry you had a problem understanding it. I'll try to simplify it for you next time

Edited September 15, 2013 by jaime

[Apotheoun]

Very interesting. Also of note Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira forbids images in Church:

 

36. Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.

 

http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law/ElviraCanons.htm

Well, the West has tended to misunderstand icons for a long time (e.g., the Council of Frankfurt), so the fact that the Council of Elvira, whose canons on continence have entered into the Western canonical tradition, has something in it that disagrees with later Eastern councils is not all that surprising.

 

By the way, the Council of Trent says things about icons (and relics) that Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians reject, so there is nothing new in what you posted above. It seems quite common (i.e., something seen quite early and repeated quite often) that the Western Church misunderstood iconography. I suppose that (as one of many factors) could explain why the Eastern Orthodox Churches are in no rush to enter into communion with the Roman Church.

[Apotheoun]

My original statement was very clear.  I'm sorry you had a problem understanding it. I'll try to simplify it for you next time

It was clear if leaving out clerical continence (either perfect continence or liturgical continence) was unimportant, but it is pretty important even if you do not think so.

[Jaime]

It was clear if leaving out clerical continence (either perfect continence or liturgical continence) was unimportant, but it is pretty important even if you do not think so.

 

It wasn't my point so there was no need for me to mention it. My point was that when the discipline of the Church allowed priests to marry, the Church still grew.  The reason I didn't want to discuss continence was that whether it was practiced or not, the Church still grew.

 

Feel free to talk about continence.  It was not my point at all

[Apotheoun]

Very interesting. Also of note Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira forbids images in Church:

 

36. Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.

 

http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law/ElviraCanons.htm

Postscript: An Orthodox friend of mine pointed out to me that Churches in Spain, both before and after the Council of Elvira, had images within them, and he also pointed out that the 36th canon of Elvira is not - according to even Protestant scholars - fully understood, because we do not know the context in which the canon was issued. Christian practice in the region seems to indicate that the canon did not stop images in general from being placed in Churches, so perhaps the canon was directed at a particular type or kind of image. It is really impossible to say for sure.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

I much prefer liturgical continence to perpetual continence for any model of married clergy (my concept of a supplemental priesthood where the celibate priests still retained the rectories was based upon this idea), but I guess I'm not adequately ensuring that the Roman Church is distinct enough from the Eastern Churches.... but what the hell does Jaime know?

[Apotheoun]

I much prefer liturgical continence to perpetual continence for any model of married clergy (my concept of a supplemental priesthood where the celibate priests still retained the rectories was based upon this idea), but I guess I'm not adequately ensuring that the Roman Church is distinct enough from the Eastern Churches.

What chance do you think there is that Rome will institute a married priesthood with liturgical continence, since it already instituted a more or less Protestant version of the diaconate after Vatican II with no requirement for periodic continence?

 

I'm not really a fan of this supplemental priesthood idea. Why should celibate priests be in control of everything? Are they somehow better than married priests?

 

And what about the at least 1,700 year old tradition of the Roman Church, defended for centuries by the popes and other Western Fathers, that requires perfect and perpetual continence of married clergy in the West? Should it just be dumped in favor of the Eastern practice? Have you read the reasons given for perfect and perpetual continence for Western put forward by Pope St. Siricius in his writings? Are you familiar with the reasoning of other popes on this matter? And does the papal magisterium understood diachronically, which the Roman Church has traditionally seen as a form of universal magisterium, have any weight any longer in the Western Church?

 

Just a few questions to ponder.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

St Paul says that he wished everyone to be like him/celibate, but that he understood this where not possible, so he recommended many times of abstinence, even for married people. 

[Apotheoun]

St Paul says that he wished everyone to be like him/celibate, but that he understood this where not possible, so he recommended many times of abstinence, even for married people. 

Yeah, and the Roman Church understands this well, because it has never required celibacy from all the faithful, but only from religious and those entering holy orders.