A Priest, A Nun, and Their Son

[Guest T-Bone]

It's all about sacrifice people!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jesus never said giving your life over to him would be easy...

[Jabberwocky]

I read a book this summer by Madeliene L'Engle called "A Severed Wasp", I believe. In it there was an Episcopal bishop. Apparently Episcopal priests can marry, and nuns can be priests...it somewhat disturbed me a bit.

Anyway, the system just seemed more prone to corruption, without people realizing the corruption. One of the bishops got divorced and remarried. Do I make sense? Granted, it was only a novel...

I forgot what point I was trying to make

[MichaelFilo]

I think the vows should be optional for priests, as it seems more appropriate. However, what is a married nun? A good wife, I suppose. (Please before jumping the gun and telling me nuns are married to Jesus in a spiritual way, we know. I think you know what I meant as well).

But seriously, optional vows wouldn't be a horrid thing from hell. However, I don't think it would be prudent now for the Church to give more concessions to modernization and liberalization.

God bless,
Mikey

[Aloysius]

married priests would mean, if we wanted to still keep disciplines so that our priests could become holy like Christ through self denial, that we would have to give up daily mass. because where they allow the ordination of married men (there is no marriage of ordained men allowed anywhere ever, that's unchangeable, it would be an invalid matrimony) they generally have disciplines of abstinence from sex for a certain time before offering the sacrifice of the mass ( I think 24 hrs, or maybe more... 2 days maybe? I forget the disciplines)

so unless they're not going to be consumating their marriage ever, they couldn't be offering mass every day.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 16 2005, 07:49 PM']married priests would mean, if we wanted to still keep disciplines so that our priests could become holy like Christ through self denial, that we would have to give up daily mass.  because where they allow the ordination of married men (there is no marriage of ordained men allowed anywhere ever, that's unchangeable, it would be an invalid matrimony) they generally have disciplines of abstinence from sex for a certain time before offering the sacrifice of the mass ( I think 24 hrs, or maybe more... 2 days maybe?  I forget the disciplines)

so unless they're not going to be consumating their marriage ever, they couldn't be offering mass every day.
[right][snapback]760520[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Where did you here this one? :

Edited October 17, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[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?