New Vatican leader raises celibacy question

[garbon]

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/09/12/new_vatican_leader_raises_celibacy_question.html

The Vatican's newly appointed Secretary of State, Italian Archbishop Pietro Parolin, caused a stir recently when he suggested the centuries' old tradition of celibacy for priests was open for discussion.

In an interview, Parolin told the Venezuelan newspaper El Universal that the Roman Catholic Church should be free to discuss the issue and consider "modifications."

"The work the church did to institute ecclesiastical celibacy must be considered," he said. "We cannot simply say that it is part of the past. It is a great challenge for the pope, because he is the one with the ministry of unity and all of those decisions must be made thinking of the unity of the church and not to divide it. Therefore we can talk, reflect, and deepen on these subjects that are not definite, and we can think of some modifications, but always with consideration of unity, and all according to the will of God. It is not about what I would like but what God wants for His church."

The full context of his statement can be found in the National Catholic Reporter, which published an English translation:

Parolin noted in the interview that celibacy for priests is not church dogma, but simply a long-standing practice. Priests were not forbidden to marry until the Second Lateran Council in 1139. Parolin said the church really began to enforce celibacy after the Council of Trent in 1563.

Parolin stopped a long way short of calling for an end to celibacy. In fact, he stressed that Pope Francis is no revolutionary. "I want to underline the theme of continuity," he said, "because sometimes it seems, and I don't know if I'm exaggerating here, that Pope Francis is going to revolutionize everything, he is going to change everything."

Still, Parolin has signaled an important shift. Francis' predecessor, the now retired Benedict XVI, flatly stated several times that celibacy for priests was here to stay. He once called it "sacred." On another occasion, while revelations of sex abuse by priests rocked the church, Benedict called celibacy a "sign of full devotion" to the Lord.

The issue, however, remains a hot one in the Catholic Church.  In Ireland, where sex scandals has seen the church toppled from its once dominant role, a public opinion poll conducted by an association of rebel priests found 87 per cent in favour of allowing priests to marry.

Celibacy is part of a bigger battle going on in the church. Under Benedict, priests across Europe rebelled against the centralization of power in Rome. The election of Pope Francis in March brought new hope. He made clear from the start that he was open to a more grassroots approach to decision making, what in church terms, is called "collegiality."

In his interview with El Universal, the Vatican's Secretary of State made clear that the need for a  more democratic church is the real challenge. "It has always been said that the church is not a democracy," he noted. "But it would be good during these times that there could be a more democratic spirit, in the sense of listening carefully, and I believe the pope has made of this one of his pontificate's objectives. A collegial movement of the church, where all the issues can be brought up, and afterward he can make a decision."

[Valmy]

You can have an autocracy and still have consensus and consent important governing principals, like England back in the day.

I can see why Catholic conservatives would be wary of allowing priests to marry, that seems likely to bring up issues around women in the clergy and homosexual marriage and so forth.

[merithyn]

You can have an autocracy and still have consensus and consent important governing principals, like England back in the day.

I can see why Catholic conservatives would be wary of allowing priests to marry, that seems likely to bring up issues around women in the clergy and homosexual marriage and so forth.

Are any of those dogma, or simply traditions, like the celibacy thing?

It's an honest question. I don't know.

[Berkut]

I can't see how allowing catholic priests to marry would imply that women should be allowed to be priests.

Were women allowed to be priests before priests were celibate?

[Valmy]

I can't see how allowing catholic priests to marry would imply that women should be allowed to be priests.

Because it would put them in much closer contact with the clergy and increase their influence.  Besides, it is not like there is not a strong faction also pushing for that and giving in to one pressure group would encourage the others.

[merithyn]

I can't see how allowing catholic priests to marry would imply that women should be allowed to be priests.

Were women allowed to be priests before priests were celibate?

I think that women were allowed to be priests before the Nicene Council, but I'm not sure how they were forbidden during the Council. I'm not sure if it became dogma or no. I'm thinking that it did.

[Valmy]

I think that women were allowed to be priests before the Nicene Council, but I'm not sure how they were forbidden during the Council. I'm not sure if it became dogma or no. I'm thinking that it did.

Where did the myth come from that the church was all woman friendly until the evil Nicene Council?  As far as I know nothing about women, and their role in the church, was even discussed in the Nicene council but I constantly hear how Constantine came in and did woman hating reforms and destroyed the hippy Christian Church.  I blame Dan Brown.

[merithyn]

I can't see how allowing catholic priests to marry would imply that women should be allowed to be priests.

Were women allowed to be priests before priests were celibate?

I think that women were allowed to be priests before the Nicene Council, but I'm not sure how they were forbidden during the Council. I'm not sure if it became dogma or no. I'm thinking that it did.

I was mistaken. At least, according to one historian, women were ordained as recently as the 12th century.

Link

Women's ordination is an simmering issue among some Catholics and now a Jesuit historian has put history on the women's side.

The Catholic Church ordained women for nearly 11 centuries before "virulent misogyny" and politics led to theological rules that wiped out the practice, Gary Macy, professor of Theology at Santa Clara University, said in a lecture Monday at Vanderbilt University.

Paulist Press tuned in to Macy's talk (podcast here) and coverage at California Catholic of Macy's book, The Hidden History of Women's Ordination.

According to Macy, until about the mid-12th century, women were ordained as deaconesses, served as bishops, distributed Communion and even heard confessions. "Women were considered to be as ordained as any man... they were considered clergy.

But, he says, the church by the 12th century

... sought to protect its property from feudal lords by inventing "a separate clerical class." Theologians came to view women as "metaphysically different from other people," so that, by the mere fact of being female, women were considered incapable of being ordained. Canonists adopted the position (that), "Women were never ordained, are not ordained now, and can never be ordained."

[merithyn]

I think that women were allowed to be priests before the Nicene Council, but I'm not sure how they were forbidden during the Council. I'm not sure if it became dogma or no. I'm thinking that it did.

Where did the myth come from that the church was all woman friendly until the evil Nicene Council?  As far as I know nothing about women, and their role in the church, was even discussed in the Nicene council but I constantly hear how Constantine came in and did woman hating reforms and destroyed the hippy Christian Church.  I blame Dan Brown.

Well, I'd learned it in history class ages ago, so pre-Dan Brown. If I remember correctly, it was that prior to the Nicene Council, there were a ton of different sects of Christianity. The Nicene Council brought them all under a single doctrine, or at least tried to. In doing so, they determined that women were not acceptable as priests.

Wiki kind of says the same thing:

Some supporters of women's ordination have asserted that there have been ordained female priests and bishops in antiquity.[5] The Church's position is that, although "a few heretical sects in the first centuries, especially Gnostic ones, entrusted the exercise of the priestly ministry to women: this innovation was immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers who considered it as unacceptable in the Church."[6] In response some supporters of women's ordination argue those sects weren't heretical but orthodox.[7]

There is evidence that women were ordained by some groups within the Christian community. For example, Pope Gelasius I apparently condemned the practice of women officiating at altars; inscriptions near Tropea in Calabria refer to "presbytera", which could be interpreted as a woman priest or as a wife of a male priest.[7] Furthermore, a sarcophagus from Dalmatia is inscribed with the date 425 and records that a grave in the Salona burial-ground was bought from presbytera Flavia Vitalia: selling burial plots was at one time a duty of presbyters.[7] There have been some 15 records so far found of women being ordained in antiquity by Christians; the Church, as noted, states those ordinations were by heretical groups, while the Women's Ordination Conference contends those same groups were orthodox.[7]

[Valmy]

Well, I'd learned it in history class ages ago, so pre-Dan Brown. If I remember correctly, it was that prior to the Nicene Council, there were a ton of different sects of Christianity. The Nicene Council brought them all under a single doctrine, or at least tried to. In doing so, they determined that women were not acceptable as priests.

The only sects the Nicene Council delt with were the Arians and variations on the Donatists who agreed with Orthodoxy on like 99.999% of issues.  There were lots of different sects of Christianity but them all being united under one doctrine was pretty much already done by the time the Nicene Council came around.  I think blaming it on Nicea though makes Constantine, aa pretty cruel and ruthless man, a handy scape goat for the corruption of the church.  Particularly as he got blamed for the material corruption by the phony 'donation of Constantine'.

[merithyn]

You can have an autocracy and still have consensus and consent important governing principals, like England back in the day.

I can see why Catholic conservatives would be wary of allowing priests to marry, that seems likely to bring up issues around women in the clergy and homosexual marriage and so forth.

Are any of those dogma, or simply traditions, like the celibacy thing?

It's an honest question. I don't know.

I looked it up. The woman priests thing is doctrine. I'm fairly sure that means that it's pretty set in stone.

[Malthus]

I can't see how allowing catholic priests to marry would imply that women should be allowed to be priests.

Were women allowed to be priests before priests were celibate?

There are in fact Catholic priests who are married right now.

My wife's family's church was run by a married Catholic priest - he performed the wedding service for us (he's dead now).

Ukranian rite.

[Valmy]

I can't see how allowing catholic priests to marry would imply that women should be allowed to be priests.

Were women allowed to be priests before priests were celibate?

There are in fact Catholic priests who are married right now.

My wife's family's church was run by a married Catholic priest - he performed the wedding service for us (he's dead now).

Ukranian rite.

Yeah but that is only if they start out as Orthodox priests and then convert right?  They get grandfathered in?  Or is that true for all Uniates like the Ukranians?  Anyway it is not like this tiny minority of married priests were routinely becoming Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes.

[derspiess]

I looked it up. The woman priests thing is doctrine. I'm fairly sure that means that it's pretty set in stone.

[Malthus]

I can't see how allowing catholic priests to marry would imply that women should be allowed to be priests.

Were women allowed to be priests before priests were celibate?

There are in fact Catholic priests who are married right now.

My wife's family's church was run by a married Catholic priest - he performed the wedding service for us (he's dead now).

Ukranian rite.

Yeah but that is only if they start out as Orthodox priests and then convert right?  They get grandfathered in?  Or is that true for all Uniates like the Ukranians?  Anyway it is not like this tiny minority of married priests were routinely becoming Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes.

I think you have to be married before you get ordained, and if you are married, you can't become a bishop, cardinal or pope. But I'm no expert.

Point is, though, that it is in fact currently possible to be a married Catholic priest, so tyere can't be a binding religious rule prohibiting it.