Cardinal: Married Catholic priests a possibility

[Jaron]

How is Raz getting dogpiled? He went after fahdiz and Meri directly and they responded.

Malthus popped into it too, but his comments have been more observational than argumentative.

[dps]

Or perhaps the reason for shortages in both are caused by some other problem that doesn't involve marriage.  That would seem to be a more logical answer.

Oh, okay - what's the problem then?

Don't know, but if two similar organizations are having the same problem then the a policy enacted by one but not the other doesn't seem like it's the cause.

In other news, Kittens were had by all.

AFAIK, Protestant churches don't have a problem with a shortage of ministers.  Of course, with some Protestant denominations, calling them an "organization" would be a stretch.

[PDH]

Notice the absence of a Robo-Woman. Robo-Jesus is clearly not married and is against priests getting married.

Point conceded.

[Malthus]

To help Raz out, because he seems like a nice enough fellow that is getting dogpiled, and not because I agree with him at all (I don't):

Priests getting married vs. priests living in a state of marriage is quite different...if priests are allowed to get married, that implies they are going to be out pursuing women for marriage and dating. For a variety of reasons (mostly regarding some catholic attitudes/teachings regarding sex), that could impair a priests ability to lead a community along the lines that the Vatican wants.

Regarding Malthus's statement that there isn't a religious reason for not having married priests, I think this is clearly wrong. The vatican seems to be exhibiting a strong preference for unmarried priests, but not to the point that it is a deal breaker in regions where its authority has been more tenuous. The church has a religious reason for wanting priests unmarried, and also a religious reason for wanting to have authority of the maximum number of churches. A compromise between the two competing objectives doesn't mean there isn't a religious justification for either.

Regarding the idea that there isn't a justification because of the historical precedent for marriage, I'd point out that (at least in the Catholic tradition) the leaders of the early church were unmarried (jesus, peter, etc) and there was a very early emphasis on celibacy as being a more holy condition. Deviations from that can be explained by both the preceding paragraph and that the vatican didn't have functional control of the church in many countries in medieval times (among others).

There simply isn't a religious reason, based on Christian doctrine, for unmarried priests. Or at least, I've never heard any.

You are mistaking "traditional" for "religious". There are many, many traditional reasons for unmarried priests. There are even some practical ones.

Take the notion that it is unseemly for priests to go out dating - presumably, the Vatican would not want OKCupid entries, "Hott Priest loves you long time" or whatnot.  That's hardly a "religious" reason.

By "religious" I mean something based on actual teachings or doctrine. A vague notion that hott, sexy priests are distasteful, or that priests devoting themselves to their families will distract them from their work, or that celebacy is more holy than not ... none of these are "religious reasons".

Take the celebacy = holy thing. This clearly comes from the notion that self-denial is an aspect of sainthood. But priests are not expected to commit to self-denial in all areas. Clearly it would be nice if all priests were saints, but it is not expected of them, it is not a religious requirement. Priests do not have to wear hair shirts and mortify their flesh - though that was also (alongside celebacy) an aspect of saintdom in medieval times.

What appears to be the case is that a practical measure - priests don't marry because it would cause trouble and lead them to build up family dynasties - has lingered long, long after it has ceased to be practical. If that's the case, there is nothing *religiously* stopping the church from changing it.  It isn't like (say) Orthodox Jews suddenly deciding to eat pork because, you know, it's tasty.

[alfred russel]

There simply isn't a religious reason, based on Christian doctrine, for unmarried priests. Or at least, I've never heard any.

You are mistaking "traditional" for "religious". There are many, many traditional reasons for unmarried priests. There are even some practical ones.

Take the notion that it is unseemly for priests to go out dating - presumably, the Vatican would not want OKCupid entries, "Hott Priest loves you long time" or whatnot.  That's hardly a "religious" reason.

By "religious" I mean something based on actual teachings or doctrine. A vague notion that hott, sexy priests are distasteful, or that priests devoting themselves to their families will distract them from their work, or that celebacy is more holy than not ... none of these are "religious reasons".

Take the celebacy = holy thing. This clearly comes from the notion that self-denial is an aspect of sainthood. But priests are not expected to commit to self-denial in all areas. Clearly it would be nice if all priests were saints, but it is not expected of them, it is not a religious requirement. Priests do not have to wear hair shirts and mortify their flesh - though that was also (alongside celebacy) an aspect of saintdom in medieval times.

What appears to be the case is that a practical measure - priests don't marry because it would cause trouble and lead them to build up family dynasties - has lingered long, long after it has ceased to be practical. If that's the case, there is nothing *religiously* stopping the church from changing it.  It isn't like (say) Orthodox Jews suddenly deciding to eat pork because, you know, it's tasty.

Catholic.com discusses this question, and I think demonstrates that there are religious reasons:

Full Question
Why can't a priest ever marry?
Answer

In the Eastern rites of the Church it is common for married men to be ordained to the priesthood. Further, in the Latin rite there are a few married men, converted ministers from other faiths, who are ordained to the Catholic priesthood. This, however, is not common. Finally, in neither the Latin rite nor the Eastern rites do priests (or deacons) marry after they have been ordained, except in extraordinary circumstances.

The reasons Latin rite priests can't marry is both theological and canonical.

Theologically, it may be pointed out that priests serve in the place of Christ and therefore, their ministry specially configures them to Christ. As is clear from Scripture, Christ was not married (except in a mystical sense, to the Church). By remaining celibate and devoting themselves to the service of the Church, priests more closely model, configure themselves to, and consecrate themselves to Christ.

As Christ himself makes clear, none of us will be married in heaven (Mt 22:23–30). By remaining unmarried in this life, priests are more closely configured to the final, eschatological state that will be all of ours.

Paul makes it very clear that remaining single allows one's attention to be undivided in serving the Lord (1 Cor 7:32–35). He recommends celibacy to all (1 Cor 7:7) but especially to ministers, who as soldiers of Christ he urges to abstain from "civilian affairs" (2 Tm 2:3–4).

Canonically, priests cannot marry for a number of reasons. First, priests who belong to religious orders take vows of celibacy. Second, while diocesan priests do not take vows, they do make a promise of celibacy.

Third, the Church has established impediments that block the validity of marriages attempted by those who have been ordained. Canon 1087 states: "Persons who are in holy orders invalidly attempt marriage."

This impediment remains as long as the priest has not been dispensed from it, even if he were to attempt a civil marriage, even if he left the Church and joined a non-Catholic sect, and even if he apostatized from the Christian faith altogether. He cannot be validly married after ordination unless he receives a dispensation from the Holy See (CIC 1078 §2, 1).

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-cant-a-priest-ever-marry

[derspiess]

I do care about the Catholic Church. I care about the good things it brings to society and I care about the harm it brings to society. It's not like it operates in a vacuum; it's an historical, international, cultural institution.

Heh it's a good point; I have no choice but to care about the church to an extent, as my in-laws are members of it.

My in-laws and my brother's wife are Catholic & I have no opinion on internal Catholic matters. None of my own business.

[Malthus]

There simply isn't a religious reason, based on Christian doctrine, for unmarried priests. Or at least, I've never heard any.

You are mistaking "traditional" for "religious". There are many, many traditional reasons for unmarried priests. There are even some practical ones.

Take the notion that it is unseemly for priests to go out dating - presumably, the Vatican would not want OKCupid entries, "Hott Priest loves you long time" or whatnot.  That's hardly a "religious" reason.

By "religious" I mean something based on actual teachings or doctrine. A vague notion that hott, sexy priests are distasteful, or that priests devoting themselves to their families will distract them from their work, or that celebacy is more holy than not ... none of these are "religious reasons".

Take the celebacy = holy thing. This clearly comes from the notion that self-denial is an aspect of sainthood. But priests are not expected to commit to self-denial in all areas. Clearly it would be nice if all priests were saints, but it is not expected of them, it is not a religious requirement. Priests do not have to wear hair shirts and mortify their flesh - though that was also (alongside celebacy) an aspect of saintdom in medieval times.

What appears to be the case is that a practical measure - priests don't marry because it would cause trouble and lead them to build up family dynasties - has lingered long, long after it has ceased to be practical. If that's the case, there is nothing *religiously* stopping the church from changing it.  It isn't like (say) Orthodox Jews suddenly deciding to eat pork because, you know, it's tasty.

Catholic.com discusses this question, and I think demonstrates that there are religious reasons:

Full Question
Why can't a priest ever marry?
Answer

In the Eastern rites of the Church it is common for married men to be ordained to the priesthood. Further, in the Latin rite there are a few married men, converted ministers from other faiths, who are ordained to the Catholic priesthood. This, however, is not common. Finally, in neither the Latin rite nor the Eastern rites do priests (or deacons) marry after they have been ordained, except in extraordinary circumstances.

The reasons Latin rite priests can't marry is both theological and canonical.

Theologically, it may be pointed out that priests serve in the place of Christ and therefore, their ministry specially configures them to Christ. As is clear from Scripture, Christ was not married (except in a mystical sense, to the Church). By remaining celibate and devoting themselves to the service of the Church, priests more closely model, configure themselves to, and consecrate themselves to Christ.

As Christ himself makes clear, none of us will be married in heaven (Mt 22:23–30). By remaining unmarried in this life, priests are more closely configured to the final, eschatological state that will be all of ours.

Paul makes it very clear that remaining single allows one's attention to be undivided in serving the Lord (1 Cor 7:32–35). He recommends celibacy to all (1 Cor 7:7) but especially to ministers, who as soldiers of Christ he urges to abstain from "civilian affairs" (2 Tm 2:3–4).

Canonically, priests cannot marry for a number of reasons. First, priests who belong to religious orders take vows of celibacy. Second, while diocesan priests do not take vows, they do make a promise of celibacy.

Third, the Church has established impediments that block the validity of marriages attempted by those who have been ordained. Canon 1087 states: "Persons who are in holy orders invalidly attempt marriage."

This impediment remains as long as the priest has not been dispensed from it, even if he were to attempt a civil marriage, even if he left the Church and joined a non-Catholic sect, and even if he apostatized from the Christian faith altogether. He cannot be validly married after ordination unless he receives a dispensation from the Holy See (CIC 1078 §2, 1).

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-cant-a-priest-ever-marry

First, we can dispose of the "canonical" reasons. They are all self-referential: priests cannot marry because they make promises of celebacy. No reason is given why such promises are necessary.

Second, the alleged religious reasons are, with the exception of Paul's commentary, simply post facto rationalizations of a policy already decided on. Certainly, Jesus was not married. He was also a Jewish carpenter before he was messiah. Must all priests therefore be Jewish carpenters before being priests?

Third, why does what happens in heaven make any difference to what a priest should be on earth? Why should priests and not others try to live like they are already in heaven? Again, this is a thin attempt to post facto cobbel together a rationalization where none exists.

The sole and only source is Paul, who famously said it is "better to marry than to burn" - pointing out that, while celebacy was best *for everyone*, it is better that people marry than that they sin by having sex outside of marriage. Indeed, the whole point of his commentary was that marriage was a good idea to avoid exactly the problems that are troubling the Catholic Church these days - namely, a lot of sex scandals. Here's what Paul actually has to say:

7 Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

[Emphasis added]

Not a word about how this advice goes for non-priests only. According to Paul, the better view is that priests (indeed everyone) should stay unmarried if they can control their passions. If they can't, get married.

Paul does not, in point of fact, state priests should not be married. The cites given promote celebacy as a good idea for everyone (again, with the caveat that it is "better to marry than to burn") . The Timothy reference is particularly egregious. What it actually says is this:

And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

Bear your share of hardship along with me like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

To satisfy the one who recruited him, a soldier does not become entangled in the business affairs of life

"Business affairs" does not, without a big stretch, mean "married". The analogy is to a soldier. Last I heard, soldiers were not celebate and got married. The point is to keep one's attention on the job - and having a partner isn't a disqualification from doing that in the analogy used: being a good soldier.

In summary, there is not a word of truth to the notion that there is a religious reason for priests not being married. These alleged "reasons" could be cobbled together to demonstrate a "reason" for almost anything. They are clearly put together in a thin attempt at justification after the policy was already implemented for other reasons.

[Malthus]

I do care about the Catholic Church. I care about the good things it brings to society and I care about the harm it brings to society. It's not like it operates in a vacuum; it's an historical, international, cultural institution.

Heh it's a good point; I have no choice but to care about the church to an extent, as my in-laws are members of it.

My in-laws and my brother's wife are Catholic & I have no opinion on internal Catholic matters. None of my own business.

My kid gets taken to Catholic religious ceremonies. Everything affecting my kid is my business.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, so there are religious reasons, you just don't accept them as valid, which makes sense since you don't accept the Catholic religion as valid.

[CountDeMoney]

He's Mexican.

No sombrero. 

Or a drive-thru menu and speaker.

"Welcome to Christburger. Can I take your order?"

[derspiess]

My kid gets taken to Catholic religious ceremonies. Everything affecting my kid is my business.

Fair enough.  I don't think mine has ever been inside a Catholic church.

[mongers]

What does Dan Brown have to say on the matter. 

[CountDeMoney]

You're all heretics, apostates and dirty, dirty protestants anyway. 

[chipwich]

You're all heretics, apostates and dirty, dirty protestants anyway.

Looks like someone is too timid to scream JEW!

[CountDeMoney]

You're all heretics, apostates and dirty, dirty protestants anyway.

Looks like someone is too timid to scream JEW!

They know who they are.