Cardinal: Married Catholic priests a possibility

[Sheilbh]

How does this lead to the conclusion priests can't be married? Levites certainly were married, for one.

It doesn't. This is Benedict's theology of celibacy - though he's been open on the subject before - which is about allowing the priest to focus more on love of God. I think that JP for example had a different perspective. The tradition is supported by being supported by the Church. It's not theologically essential to the priesthood and there's no scriptural rule prescribing it. As I say it's not doctrine.

His view is that priests (and bishops) are men of God (Paul to Timothy) their purpose is to bring the Kingdom of God to the men and women the world. Like the Levites theirs is not the world. So when entering the priestly state like the Levites they say 'the Lord is my chosen portion and my cup, you hold my lot'. So, as he puts it, celibacy is another part of remaining theocentric, like the line in Matthew 'there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him accept it who can'. By celibacy the priest is able (like Christ) to focus their love on God and thus more fully bring the Kingdom of God to those they serve. Again as Benedict puts it:
'The true foundation of celibacy can be contained in the phrase: 'Dominus pars' – You are my land. It can only be theocentric. It cannot mean being deprived of love, but must mean letting oneself be consumed by passion for God and subsequently, thanks to a more intimate way of being with him, to serve men and women, too.'

[Malthus]

How does this lead to the conclusion priests can't be married? Levites certainly were married, for one.

It doesn't. This is Benedict's theology of celibacy - though he's been open on the subject before - which is about allowing the priest to focus more on love of God. I think that JP for example had a different perspective. The tradition is supported by being supported by the Church. It's not theologically essential to the priesthood and there's no scriptural rule prescribing it. As I say it's not doctrine.

His view is that priests (and bishops) are men of God (Paul to Timothy) their purpose is to bring the Kingdom of God to the men and women the world. Like the Levites theirs is not the world. So when entering the priestly state like the Levites they say 'the Lord is my chosen portion and my cup, you hold my lot'. So, as he puts it, celibacy is another part of remaining theocentric, like the line in Matthew 'there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him accept it who can'. By celibacy the priest is able (like Christ) to focus their love on God and thus more fully bring the Kingdom of God to those they serve. Again as Benedict puts it:
'The true foundation of celibacy can be contained in the phrase: 'Dominus pars' – You are my land. It can only be theocentric. It cannot mean being deprived of love, but must mean letting oneself be consumed by passion for God and subsequently, thanks to a more intimate way of being with him, to serve men and women, too.'

It would certainly not solve Catholicism's staffing problems if they insisted on priests making themselves eunuchs, like the ancint priests of Cyble. 

The actual scriptures all seem to be saying, do this if you can, but don't attempt it if you can't. That is far more sensible than laying down a prohibition, which leads to the exact problem Paul identified - Priests who can't really hack celebacy, leading to sex scandals.

[Sheilbh]

The Church's position would be that if you can't don't become a priest. It's not for you, you haven't really been called. Or you've been called to another position, like a deacon.

I don't think it's celibacy that leads to sex scandals.

[Martinus]

There is an obvious link between celibacy and sex scandals, Sheilbh.

Celibacy among clergy means that it creates a caste of men who are single, but not only they are not seen as somewhat suspicious because of it, but they are seen as respected and holy. This means that this caste will naturally attract people who have issues with their sexuality - and since I am willing to give them benefit of doubt, I'd say more of them do it because they have an erroneous view they can pray their sinful sexuality away, rather than see it as an excellent cover.

The thing is that it doesn't work for obvious reasons and on top of that the church puts these men in situations in which their sexuality is tested on a daily basis (for gays, this is being locked away with other men; for pedophiles it's by giving them easy access to children who view them as authority figures - in any other job, a single guy would be checked and cross-checked a hundred of times before being allowed to work closely with children).

And even for heterosexuals, denial breeds pathology (not to mention, denying healthy sexual expression - be it heterosexual or homosexual - is just bad for one's mental hygiene).

So yes, sex scandals are a direct result of celibacy.

[Martinus]

Not to mention, the nature of catholic priesthood is that by the time these guys realise they can't just pray their sexual attraction away, they are locked in a life time job that one cannot quit without losing pretty much everything (as they are rarely trained to work in another job, their entire livelihood depends on the church, and on top of that, by becoming defrocked, they are subject to contempt from their former brethren).

So there is little wonder that by the time these men get to episcopal positions, they are already disillusioned, cynical and fucking other men (if we are lucky) or little children.

[CountDeMoney]

So yes, sex scandals are a direct result of celibacy.

Sex scandals don't impact the priesthood at any greater percentage than in any other profession.

in any other job, a single guy would be checked and cross-checked a hundred of times before being allowed to work closely with children).

No, they wouldn't. 

[mongers]

Seems this cardinal had too many points of interest. 

I'll get my coat. 

[Camerus]

You can't, for example, claim to have a genuine religious requirement to kill people by quoting the commandment "thou shalt not kill" and by carefully explaining how this actually means you really should kill people.

Didn't some Christian dube do that very thing in relation to the notion of a just war ? 

Sure. Another example is Christians who murder abortion doctors.  "Pro-life" ... to the point of murder.

You know, the abortion-doctor murdering Christian line is used so often, I suddenly got curious how many people in the US were actually killed in anti-abortion violence.  According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States), it's been a grand total of 8 people, 4 of whom were doctors, and only one of all 8 people was killed since the 1990's.    

Granted, there have been more cases of vandalism and assaults, but the actual numbers don't really seem to match the frequency with which this example/argument is advanced.

Huh? My point does not depend on the frequecy with which such murders occurs.  I'm not claiming this is some flaw inherent in Christianity, as opposed to any other doctrine.

Oh, I know it wasn't your point and it was more of a throwaway comment.... I was mostly just curious about the frequency with which that example really occurs, s'all.

[Malthus]

The Church's position would be that if you can't don't become a priest. It's not for you, you haven't really been called. Or you've been called to another position, like a deacon.

I don't think it's celibacy that leads to sex scandals.

Paul was actually wiser on this point than the Church.

It isn't that celebacy "causes" sex scandals - the "cause" is each individual choice to indulge. Rather, it is that celebacy makes such scandals more likely, as celebacy is (as Paul recognized) too difficult for many people to hack. Making a bright-line rule that one cannot have sex and keep one's position breeds trouble very predictably. Even if you assume that celebacy is in itself a good thing (obviously, I don't, but that is neither here nor there), it would be better to adopt Paul's dictum of "better to marry than to burn with passion", as opposed to the Church's position of "no sex at all". Much worse is that the Church has apparently extended all sorts of "understanding" (that is, covering-up for) priests who cannot keep to their vows - wouldn't it be better to allow priests the normal human solice of marriage if they want it?

[Sheilbh]

Absolutely, I agree. As I say it's a discipline, not a doctrine so it can be changed. But I think the Catholic link provided earlier was rather literal in looking for direction from the Bible which just isn't the way most theology works, it's allegorical, symbolic and poetic as much as anything. It's more literary criticism than legal analysis.

In my view it should and should even go further in allowing priests to marry rather than just allowing married priests.

Though I'd still have solemn vows - as for monks - that allowed for total celibacy.

I broadly agree with Damian Thompson, who's fiercely, conservatively Catholic, in the Telegraph:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100204046/the-next-pope-must-think-seriously-about-married-priests-because-the-celibacy-rule-isnt-working/

[Neil]

They might as well let them marry.  Even if they start having kids, it's not like the Church matters enough to care if the bishoprics start getting passed down in the family.

[Razgovory]

Since the scandals tend to occur with young boys I don't see how marriage is going to solve this problem.  Unless they can marry young boys.

[Neil]

Since the scandals tend to occur with young boys I don't see how marriage is going to solve this problem.  Unless they can marry young boys.

Then we'll be able to acertain that the problem isn't priests, but rather gays.

[Eddie Teach]

Since the scandals tend to occur with young boys I don't see how marriage is going to solve this problem.  Unless they can marry young boys.

Priests being able to get married means you get more applicants, which means they can weed out more potential offenders. Also, priests being parents themselves means a significant increase in hysteria and decrease in willingness to look the other way within the church.

[Razgovory]

Since the scandals tend to occur with young boys I don't see how marriage is going to solve this problem.  Unless they can marry young boys.

Priests being able to get married means you get more applicants, which means they can weed out more potential offenders. Also, priests being parents themselves means a significant increase in hysteria and decrease in willingness to look the other way within the church.

Except there isn't any reason to believe marriage will entice more people to the priesthood, nor are there ways to weed out potential offenders without them first offending.