A Discussion on Married Priests

[Era Might]

3 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

You could pretty much say the same about Jesus if you think about it.  Living with his folks up to the age of 30?  Dying at the age of 33?  What could he possibly teach you?  But you see, I'm pretty sure Priests have graces from God to help others even if they themselves have had no "experience of life."  

Priests aren't like you and me, they have like...superpowers if you will...priests are capable of working the wonders God has infused in their Office.  They are not mere mortals, but "Alter Cristus."  Even in the state of mortal sins, these "powers" don't diminish, as attested by St. Teresa of Avila, who saw two demons chained to a sinful priest's neck as he elevated the Host at Mass.  The host was still consecrated and the Lord Jesus was made present in the Holy Eucharist, even at the hands of this priest enslaved by two demons....

Maybe what you don't understand is, the priests do not experience worldly life, but an inner life more supernatural and more hidden...

We need to pray for our priests, especially those who seem to have forgotten how important their priestly duties are...

I understand what you're saying, and I think a spiritual leader is a good thing, but I think the Catholic priesthood was long a romanticized shell of an institutional beauracracy. The priest is not some ethereal being who somehow transcends real life and become a pure symbol. The career of a priest is just that, a career. A young man enters an institution, just as ignorant and inexperienced as any other professional. I think what the church needs is not a more respectable, professionalized priesthood, but less. Break priests out of the institution and let them be spiritual leaders. But this would require a degree of freedom that institutions are built to avoid. People want stability and appearances. The idea that a kid who enters the priesthood magically becomes a wise man, is romanticized superstition, IMO. There is a real world has nothing to do with career life, not just the priesthood. The professional life is a sheltered life of privilege. That's why parents want their kids to become professionals, to have an Ideal life that has nothing to do with the real world. Yes, Jesus lived 30 years at home...that's exactly the point! He wasn't a professional, he kept to himself. The Apostles were just a bunch of fools learning at the feet of Jesus, who himself was a despised outcast from the professional religion of the pharisees and temple. The Apostles had to be "baptised" into the real world. They weren't a clean cut band of chancery soldiers. St. Paul earned his authority, not in a seminary, but in beatings, in boatwrecks, in schisms, etc. He, too, was a despised fool. Wisdom and experience are hard earned; I'm not saying every priest has to be a man of the world, but the priesthood should not be modelled after the clerical model of professional priests. But, I realize that rethinking the role of the priest has practical consequences for the entire institutional model of parishes, etc.

2 hours ago, vee said:

Then why don't you go be a priest if you think you can do a better job?

You missed my point. The priesthood isn't about doing a good job. A good job for a priest is to become Christ, not to be named a Monsignor.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Era Might

[vee]

43 minutes ago, Era Might said:

 

You missed my point. The priesthood isn't about doing a good job. A good job for a priest is to become Christ, not to be named a Monsignor.

Then go be part of the solution. Go lead other priests by example. 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Era Might said:

I understand what you're saying, and I think a spiritual leader is a good thing, but I think the Catholic priesthood was long a romanticized shell of an institutional beauracracy. The priest is not some ethereal being who somehow transcends real life and become a pure symbol. The career of a priest is just that, a career. A young man enters an institution, just as ignorant and inexperienced as any other professional. I think what the church needs is not a more respectable, professionalized priesthood, but less. Break priests out of the institution and let them be spiritual leaders. But this would require a degree of freedom that institutions are built to avoid. People want stability and appearances. The idea that a kid who enters the priesthood magically becomes a wise man, is romanticized superstition, IMO. There is a real world has nothing to do with career life, not just the priesthood. The professional life is a sheltered life of privilege. That's why parents want their kids to become professionals, to have an Ideal life that has nothing to do with the real world. Yes, Jesus lived 30 years at home...that's exactly the point! He wasn't a professional, he kept to himself. The Apostles were just a bunch of fools learning at the feet of Jesus, who himself was a despised outcast from the professional religion of the pharisees and temple. The Apostles had to be "baptised" into the real world. They weren't a clean cut band of chancery soldiers. St. Paul earned his authority, not in a seminary, but in beatings, in boatwrecks, in schisms, etc. He, too, was a despised fool. Wisdom and experience are hard earned; I'm not saying every priest has to be a man of the world, but the priesthood should not be modelled after the clerical model of professional priests. But, I realize that rethinking the role of the priest has practical consequences for the entire institutional model of parishes, etc.

You missed my point. The priesthood isn't about doing a good job. A good job for a priest is to become Christ, not to be named a Monsignor.

Your "real life" statements cant help but remind me of the first chapter of The Screwtape Letters.

That "real life" stuff is what satan tells people to deceive them, and you are certainly deceived. 

But then again, you want to be deceived, so that you can continue justifying sinning.

Carry on.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Peace

[Era Might]

43 minutes ago, vee said:

Then go be part of the solution. Go lead other priests by example. 

I'm not interested in joining an institution I don't like. I don't want to lead priests, I want them to lead me. They will have to reform the institution they joined. The Pope's willingness to consider married priests is one small step in that direction.

[Peace]

52 minutes ago, Era Might said:

I'm not interested in joining an institution I don't like.

And the reason you don't like the Church is because you like sinning, and the Church tells you to stop sinning.

[vee]

1 hour ago, Era Might said:

I'm not interested in joining an institution I don't like. I don't want to lead priests, I want them to lead me. They will have to reform the institution they joined. The Pope's willingness to consider married priests is one small step in that direction.

You don't like the church but you want priests to lead you!?  You don't want to lead or set an example just expect others to do so  

there are married catholic priests btw in the Ukrainian rite

Why bother criticising members of something you aren't part of and have no intention of being part of nor helping?

[Era Might]

30 minutes ago, vee said:

You don't like the church but you want priests to lead you!?  You don't want to lead or set an example just expect others to do so  

there are married catholic priests btw in the Ukrainian rite

Why bother criticising members of something you aren't part of and have no intention of being part of nor helping?

Just because I'm not a priest doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on it. There are a lot of great priests who bring a lot of gifts to the people they serve. That doesn't mean the institution is beyond criticism. I don't see the admission of married priests as merely a limited gesture of inclusion. If it is, better to forget it. It's an opportunity to rethink the entire institution and how it represents the gospel. The clerical church of the middle ages or the 1950s is not the only possible or the only historical model. Rather than asking how can married priests be like clerical professionals, the church should ask whether any priest should be a clerical professional.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Era Might

[Era Might]

The Pope addressed the problem a few years back in his America interview:

Quote

The structural and organizational reforms are secondary—that is, they come afterward. The first reform must be the attitude. The ministers of the Gospel must be people who can warm the hearts of the people, who walk through the dark night with them, who know how to dialogue and to descend themselves into their people’s night, into the darkness, but without getting lost. The people of God want pastors, not clergy acting like bureaucrats or government officials. The bishops, particularly, must be able to support the movements of God among their people with patience, so that no one is left behind. But they must also be able to accompany the flock that has a flair for finding new paths.

“Instead of being just a church that welcomes and receives by keeping the doors open, let us try also to be a church that finds new roads, that is able to step outside itself and go to those who do not attend Mass, to those who have quit or are indifferent. The ones who quit sometimes do it for reasons that, if properly understood and assessed, can lead to a return. But that takes audacity and courage.”

If the church cannot be a failure, then it cannot be Christ. The institutional church has failed. The Triumphalist dream of a new institution filled with clerics is just romantic longing for a past that was never romantic to begin with. The middle ages and the 20th century were marked by strong clerical systems that were corrupt, sexually and otherwise. Those systems failed, like, say, Communist systems. That doesn't mean the world is over, just means a new form is needed. As Pope Francis says, the role of the priest is to accompany the people, and I'm sure any priest of real experience would have stories of being humbled at his own nothingness before the people he served. His wisdom is not in being above the people, yet, that's the basis of clerical priesthood, a professionalized system of role players who become identified with the church and rule it. A priest does not bring Christ, he merely bears witness to him in the midst of the people, where Christ already dwells. We depend too much on priests, just as the people depended too much on Jesus. He was never a beauracrat, he never promised anything except his presence. We don't need priests to be our rulers, only our fathers.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Era Might

[Peace]

45 minutes ago, Era Might said:

The Pope addressed the problem a few years back in his America interview:

If the church cannot be a failure, then it cannot be Christ. The institutional church has failed. The Triumphalist dream of a new institution filled with clerics is just romantic longing for a past that was never romantic to begin with. The middle ages and the 20th century were marked by strong clerical systems that were corrupt, sexually and otherwise. Those systems failed, like, say, Communist systems. That doesn't mean the world is over, just means a new form is needed. As Pope Francis says, the role of the priest is to accompany the people, and I'm sure any priest of real experience would have stories of being humbled at his own nothingness before the people he served. His wisdom is not in being above the people, yet, that's the basis of clerical priesthood, a professionalized system of role players who become identified with the church and rule it. A priest does not bring Christ, he merely bears witness to him in the midst of the people, where Christ already dwells. We depend too much on priests, just as the people depended too much on Jesus. He was never a beauracrat, he never promised anything except his presence. We don't need priests to be our rulers, only our fathers.

Who is "we"? You are not Catholic and I highly doubt that anyone here gives a hoot about what you think the Catholic Church should do.

You should go away and post in an anti-Catholic forum. You might find a sympathetic ear.

[Jack4]

16 hours ago, Era Might said:

Just because I'm not a priest doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on it.

Ah.  

Great epistemology. 

[Era Might]

2 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Ah.  

Great epistemology. 

?

Didn't know this thread and topic were only open to priests.

Anyway, discuss whatever you want. Adios.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Era Might

[Jack4]

9 minutes ago, Era Might said:

?

Didn't know this thread and topic were only open to priests.

Anyway, discuss whatever you want. Adios.

?

 Those who say "The career of a priest is just that, a career" show forth their ignorance. 

[Era Might]

33 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

?

 Those who say "The career of a priest is just that, a career" show forth their ignorance. 

Oh. Well, since you're wise and not ignorant, you'd know. Maybe some day the ignorant will be deemed worthy to post on Phatmass.

[Peace]

31 minutes ago, Era Might said:

Oh. Well, since you're wise and not ignorant, you'd know. Maybe some day the ignorant will be deemed worthy to post on Phatmass.

Whatever. Cut the BS. Everyone here knows what you are up to.

[Era Might]

32 minutes ago, Peace said:

Whatever. Cut the BS. Everyone here knows what you are up to.

Yeah, I'm one of those heretics who likes to have conversations about, you know, Catholicism and stuff. Went away from Phatmass for 9 months. Came back cuz I like, you know, to talk about Catholicism, and stuff. Guess I'm not welcome, anymore. Peace. Sorry for derailing your thread, carry on.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Era Might