Half Of Priest And Bishops Are Gay

[PhuturePriest]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

I think that my quote below should be sufficient to answer your question. I believe that they are similar in that neither is a requirement to be a priest, and that each is a sacrifice.

 

Well. St. Paul wrote this: "I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
".

I think we can glean that it is better to live celibate if that is what God calls one to do. If God calls one to the vocation of marriage, then I do not think that choosing a life of celibacy would be a "better" choice. I don't think one is inherently better than the other.

He also said that a single man has a heart completely devoted to God, but a married man's heart is split between God and his family. Do you want priests with a heart completely devoted to God, or do you want priests whose hearts are divided? 

The vocation of the priesthood is a 24/7 job -- quite literally. Priests are to be ready at every hour of the day or night to do their duty. 3 AM phone calls from the hospital, 12 hour days, meetings, parish finances, personal finances, confessions, celebrating three Masses one after the other, funerals, consoling people before and after the funerals, weddings, attending the wedding reception, baptisms, RCIA classes, youth group, and making sure they say every required hour of the Divine Office in between all of this. A married priest in the life of the Roman Rite would have to choose between being a good husband and father and a bad priest, a good priest and a bad husband and father, or being sub par across the board. Married clergy is not practical. 

Would we get more priests if we allowed them to get married? Possibly. But we would also get more marines if instead of having to run during training they went to a spa. But the quality of those marines would be deplorable. Again: It may sound harsh, but if giving up marriage and sex is too much for a man, that's fine. But the Church doesn't need him to be a priest. He can get married and have a holy marriage. He can even become a deacon, if he wants. But the Church should not change its stance on the celibate priesthood because modern man is preoccupied with sex.

[bardegaulois]

24 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

He also said that a single man has a heart completely devoted to God, but a married man's heart is split between God and his family. Do you want priests with a heart completely devoted to God, or do you want priests whose hearts are divided? 

The vocation of the priesthood is a 24/7 job -- quite literally. Priests are to be ready at every hour of the day or night to do their duty. 3 AM phone calls from the hospital, 12 hour days, meetings, parish finances, personal finances, confessions, celebrating three Masses one after the other, funerals, consoling people before and after the funerals, weddings, attending the wedding reception, baptisms, RCIA classes, youth group, and making sure they say every required hour of the Divine Office in between all of this. A married priest in the life of the Roman Rite would have to choose between being a good husband and father and a bad priest, a good priest and a bad husband and father, or being sub par across the board. Married clergy is not practical. 

Would we get more priests if we allowed them to get married? Possibly. But we would also get more marines if instead of having to run during training they went to a spa. But the quality of those marines would be deplorable. Again: It may sound harsh, but if giving up marriage and sex is too much for a man, that's fine. But the Church doesn't need him to be a priest. He can get married and have a holy marriage. He can even become a deacon, if he wants. But the Church should not change its stance on the celibate priesthood because modern man is preoccupied with sex.

I'd like to add completely practically here, that priests aren't rich. They don't even generally make a middle-class salary. If one ever were to contemplate priests having families, then would your giving to the parish double or even treble to pay for the mortgage on the house (because the rectory is too small), the wife's car, the kids' college funds, and all the other expenses necessary to running a family? And all of this while the quality of his pastoral care isn't as good as it could be because he has his family responsibilities to attend to as well?

Face it, we're really fortunate to have a celibate clergy, in that we get more for less. As PhuturePriest indicated, if a man cannot sacrifice the good of marriage for a higher purpose, he has no business in the priesthood.

[Guest]

The only reason it sounds appealing to me is because it brings more straight men to the Priesthood. It's not about so they can have sex. I find it laughable you're insinuating that's my viewpoint. Again I'm not a fan of Voris but if he's right with this 50 percent number then that's crazy. If there is another big abuse or cover up it would be devastating. I'm not some knowledge Catholic and I try not to pretend to be. Maybe you're right and married Priest would not help at all. All I know is what happened before can't happen again. And I think it's a joke when Catholics say with a straight face the Priest being homosexual has nothing to do with them molesting teenage boys and younger. Knight showed stats that destroy that assumption. Please pull your head out of the sand if you believe this.

[Peace]

25 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

He also said that a single man has a heart completely devoted to God, but a married man's heart is split between God and his family. Do you want priests with a heart completely devoted to God, or do you want priests whose hearts are divided? 

I would want a person with a heart completely devoted to God, whether he or she be a member of the laity or the clergy. I think you might be reading St. Paul too literally, or applying what was the case then as a definitive statment as what must hold under all time and circumstances. Being celibate does not guaranteee that one's heart is compelty devoted to God, nor does being married necessitate that one's heart must be split. There are a few married saints among the ranks.

25 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

The vocation of the priesthood is a 24/7 job -- quite literally. Priests are to be ready at every hour of the day or night to do their duty. 3 AM phone calls from the hospital, 12 hour days, meetings, parish finances, personal finances, confessions, celebrating three Masses one after the other, funerals, consoling people before and after the funerals, weddings, attending the wedding reception, baptisms, RCIA classes, youth group, and making sure they say every required hour of the Divine Office in between all of this. A married priest in the life of the Roman Rite would have to choose between being a good husband and father and a bad priest, a good priest and a bad husband and father, or being sub par across the board. Married clergy is not practical. 

Would we get more priests if we allowed them to get married? Possibly. But we would also get more marines if instead of having to run during training they went to a spa. But the quality of those marines would be deplorable.

As for your "marine" hypothetical, I think there are advantages to having married priests, and that there are advantages to having celibate priests. Again, you seem to assume that celibacy is more of a sign of devoutness than being married. You seem to assert that a man who is willing to take a vow of celibacy is more devout than a married man, or would make a better priest than a married man. Is that really the case? Are the Western Rite priests more devout or better priests than the Eastern Rite priests? What about the married Anglican-convert priests? Are they subpar as well?

What if I were to say to you "If refusing to live 75 years under the Rule of Benedict is too much for a man, that's fine. But the Church doesn't need him to be a priest."? You would find that statement to be a bit unfounded would you not? I do not think that you disagree with the principle of what I am saying, you are only disputing the degree, or the specific manner of discipline. But the degree or specific manner of discipline required is prudential matter for the Church to consider. That is what we are doing. Preistly celibacy is a prudential decision that can change with the times. It is not a matter of dogma. I think that for about the first 1000 years or so of the Church's history, She did not have the requirement. Was She was in grave error all of that time? There are times and circumstances where it might be better to have the requirement, and I think there are also times and circumstances where the opposite might be true. I think the discussion is legitimate, again, because it is not dogma, but a matter of discipline or a prudential decision.

But if you think the prudential factors still way in favor of celibacy, that is perfectly cool by me. What I am saying is, is that people who may weigh the same pudential factors and reach a different conclusion than you are not necessarily sex-crazed people who want to destroy the Church . . .

25 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

Again: It may sound harsh, but if giving up marriage and sex is too much for a man, that's fine. But the Church doesn't need him to be a priest. He can get married and have a holy marriage. He can even become a deacon, if he wants. But the Church should not change its stance on the celibate priesthood because modern man is preoccupied with sex.

I would doubt that modern man is more preoccupied with sex than the man of 50, 1000, 2000 or 10,000 years ago. Men have had a strong desire to sleep with the fairer sex for quite a while. Regardless, I don't think that it is fair to characterize those those who think it is time to revisit the issue as being motivated by simply having a desire to have more sex, if that is what you were suggesting.
 

 

 

 

*weigh

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Luigi said:

Having married priests won't change the inclinations of those who already have inclinations one way or another. But if there are enough other people available to be priests, then those with certain inclinations could be asked to leave orders, or not assigned to parishes, or whatever. The idea is that married men would expand the pool of available candidates for the priesthood.

Personally, I don't support marriage for clergy, or having female priests. But I do think the Church has ordained some questionable candidates because the Church was in such desperate need for priests.

 

Missed this post earlier. I agree with this.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Papist said:

 

That is very interesting about most men. But, I am still curious to hear how a priest's sexual desire for adolescent boys goes away by simply being married to a woman? 

After reading this thread 5 times I think I get what you're saying. You think I'm saying let a pedophile Priest marry a woman and he won't molest boys. That the desire will magically go away. That's not what I'm saying. Obviously you think a man who hookups/ molest male teenagers and younger isn't necessarily gay. That they could be straight but somehow end up doing this. How do you think that way? It's insane. I'm thankful for the numbers Knight posted that shows how insane this thinking is. No I never ever (never ever? Ever ever?) (Outkast voice) insinuated a homosexual man should pretend to be something he's not and marry a woman. Weather he's a Priest, layman or liberal atheist. Be yourself and true to who you are. My comments on married Priest are directed at straight men who have no inclinations to be attracted to males whether the males are 9 or 19. Like it or not homosexuality acted out between two males is way worse than a man and a woman hooking up outside of marriage. Both will lead to hell with no repentance but let's stop pretending they are the same sin. They're not. And as I said earlier let's stop pretending a guy being homosexual has nothing to do with him being attracted to a 14 year old male or a 9 year old. I'm not saying all homosexuals are going to hook up with guys under the legal age. What I am saying is a guy who is fully attracted to females doesn't just one day start messing around with boys. Straight men don't do this. As soon as they do they are gay. Not trying to be uncharitable and come off sounding like it's evil to be gay. The Church teaches it's not and I agree. I'm just really really realllllyyyy surprised that people here sincerely believe the Priest being homosexual had nothing to do with the sexual abuse scandal and cover up. Or that a Priest who did these things may not EVEN be homosexual.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Guest

[bardegaulois]

To add something I just saw to this debate: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/01/priestly-celibacy-more-than-mere.html

I haven't listened yet (I rather dislike listening to things like so; reading is so much quicker), but I figured that, this being very related, I'd throw it out there.

[Papist]

12 hours ago, Peace said:

Hmm. Would you be willing to move to Kentucky and live the Rule of St. Benedict for 75 years  before ordination (emphasis on the 75)? Let's be honest here. If the church had decided to institute such a rule - we would have a whole lot less priests than we have today. Many of the priests that we have today would not be priests if we had such a ridiculous rule. Does that then mean that the 99% percent of today's priests who would have chosen not to make such a choice, do not have sufficient desire to be a priest? Does that mean that 99% of today's priests should not be priests? I don't think you would conclude that, so I don't see why you conclude the same with respect to those who may have been dissuaded by the celibacy requirement. Neither the celibacy requirement nor 75 years in KY are mandated by scripture or tradition.

If someone desires to be celibate that is totally cool by me. But I don't think that a vow of celibacy should be taken as a symbol of one's devoutness or suitableness as a priest. This is what I would object to.

Heck, one might even think that if the Church were to impose the opposite requirement (that all clergy be married men), that this would be a greater sacrifice. Some folks who have had to deal with a nagging girlfriend or children might attest to that.

I am all for following one's vocation. But I don't that means that every limitation that the Church may impose on people in order to pursue that vocation is necessarily a good thing. Being called to the priesthood and being called to celibacy are different things, and you don't have to have one to have the other. I think this is why there has been discussion among the powers that be about limiting the celibacy requirement. I think that discussion is legitimate.

Sure. But not all who are called to a vocation accept it. Some of the reasons they do not accept it may relate to personal finances, the celibacy requirement, the lack of a blue cassock, etc. etc. I don't think the Church needs to require things that might act to discourage people from following their vocations. It seems to me that we can make their lives easier, rather than harder.

But that is not to say I am completely against a celibacy requirement. I understand that there are good reasons why the Church imposes it, and I trust Her judgment.

But I think the discussion is legitimate to have - whether or not it is time to change that requirement.

My belief is that the culture needs to change, not the Church.

[Anomaly]

19 minutes ago, Papist said:

My belief is that the culture needs to change, not the Church.

Keep in mind that a celibate priesthood is more of a prudential discipline than a dogma.  (Unlike women in the priest hood) There are many married priests in communion with Rome.  

The idea is that limiting the priesthood to men that are both called to celibacy AND priesthood unnecessarily and negatively limits applicants to the priesthood.  It is also feared by some that it necessitates tolerance of applicants by men who have no attraction to females confusing it with a call for celibacy instead of dealing with potential sexual attraction disfunction. 

[hotpink]

7 hours ago, Josh said:

After reading this thread 5 times I think I get what you're saying. You think I'm saying let a pedophile Priest marry a woman and he won't molest boys. That the desire will magically go away. That's not what I'm saying. Obviously you think a man who hookups/ molest male teenagers and younger isn't necessarily gay. That they could be straight but somehow end up doing this. How do you think that way? It's insane. I'm thankful for the numbers Knight posted that shows how insane this thinking is. No I never ever (never ever? Ever ever?) (Outkast voice) insinuated a homosexual man should pretend to be something he's not and marry a woman. Weather he's a Priest, layman or liberal atheist. Be yourself and true to who you are. My comments on married Priest are directed at straight men who have no inclinations to be attracted to males whether the males are 9 or 19. Like it or not homosexuality acted out between two males is way worse than a man and a woman hooking up outside of marriage. Both will lead to hell with no repentance but let's stop pretending they are the same sin. They're not. And as I said earlier let's stop pretending a guy being homosexual has nothing to do with him being attracted to a 14 year old male or a 9 year old. I'm not saying all homosexuals are going to hook up with guys under the legal age. What I am saying is a guy who is fully attracted to females doesn't just one day start messing around with boys. Straight men don't do this. As soon as they do they are gay. Not trying to be uncharitable and come off sounding like it's evil to be gay. The Church teaches it's not and I agree. I'm just really really realllllyyyy surprised that people here sincerely believe the Priest being homosexual had nothing to do with the sexual abuse scandal and cover up. Or that a Priest who did these things may not EVEN be homosexual.

While some studies cite that pedophilia is higher among minors some of the worst sexual abusers in modern times have been men married to women.  Straight men may not start messing around with boys one day, but statistically girls are more likely to be abused by a family member--especially a married family member--than a stranger.  We've seen time and time again abusers take positions of power not because they are worthy of the role but because of the access to children that this gives them.  Not only that, but while statistically less likely to be an offender you're also inviting a woman to be deeply involved in parish life as well as children, both young and adult.  I work on a college campus and I cannot tell you how many times I hear that a preacher/preachers kid/preachers wife abused/covered up abuse.  It's actually one of the things that lead me to the Catholic Church, as I heard story after story of what happened in these small protestant churches.  The priest scandal, while wholly disgusting, doesn't even compare to what I'm surprised hasn't ever been properly investigated or given media attention.

 

Now, maybe I'd change my mind if I spent some time around parish communities with married othodox priests, but I am cautious about married preachers and would never want a niece/nephew or god-willing a child of mine to be in one of those churches, especally a splinter one with a highly charasmatic leader.

[Papist]

2 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Keep in mind that a celibate priesthood is more of a prudential discipline than a dogma.  (Unlike women in the priest hood) There are many married priests in communion with Rome.  

The idea is that limiting the priesthood to men that are both called to celibacy AND priesthood unnecessarily and negatively limits applicants to the priesthood.  It is also feared by some that it necessitates tolerance of applicants by men who have no attraction to females confusing it with a call for celibacy instead of dealing with potential sexual attraction disfunction. 

Sorry, but are going to have to help me out here on your point.  What is the "many married priests in communion with Rome." point?  Perhaps knowing what you mean by "in communion with Rome" would help.

[Anomaly]

Papist, 

I'm not sure if you're trolling...

The early Chuch had married priests.  Peter was thought to be married.  Eastern Catholic priests can marry (EC, unlike Eastern OTHODOX Catholic) are in communion with Rome.   Some Anglican priests have converted to Catholicism, are still married and are valid priests.  

Celibacy is a preferred discipline, but it is not understood to be a theological requirement like male only priests.  Even Cam would concur.   

This is a discussion on prudential reasons why or why not married priests.   It is NOT a non-starter, such as female priests which is "theologically impossible".

[little2add]

99.9% of Catholic Priest and Bishops are Catholic 

[Nihil Obstat]

12 minutes ago, little2add said:

99.9% of Catholic Priest and Bishops are Catholic 

I think that is a bit optimistic, to be perfectly honest.

[Ice_nine]

meh