Cardinal: Married Catholic priests a possibility

[Martinus]

Parents feel much strongly, on a psychological level, about punishing child abuse than people who have no children

Man I don't know.  I am way to tired to care as much about child abuse in far away places now that I using up my energy raising kids.

I am not talking about starting a global crusade but more of what would happen if you found out one of your work colleagues is molesting kids. Would you be happy to look away and have it covered up?

[Razgovory]

Parents feel much strongly, on a psychological level, about punishing child abuse than people who have no children

Man I don't know.  I am way to tired to care as much about child abuse in far away places now that I using up my energy raising kids.

I am not talking about starting a global crusade but more of what would happen if you found out one of your work colleagues is molesting kids. Would you be happy to look away and have it covered up?

Would you?  After all, you are one of the people who have have defended pedophiles here.  You aren't likely to have children and are dismissive of "breeders".  If such an act would be a career limiting move would some one as self absorbed as yourself be willing to ruin your career for the sake of crotch fruit?

[Martinus]

Parents feel much strongly, on a psychological level, about punishing child abuse than people who have no children

Man I don't know.  I am way to tired to care as much about child abuse in far away places now that I using up my energy raising kids.

I am not talking about starting a global crusade but more of what would happen if you found out one of your work colleagues is molesting kids. Would you be happy to look away and have it covered up?

Would you?  After all, you are one of the people who have have defended pedophiles here.  You aren't likely to have children and are dismissive of "breeders".  If such an act would be a career limiting move would some one as self absorbed as yourself be willing to ruin your career for the sake of crotch fruit?

What the fuck are you even trying to say with this gibberish? Are you off your meds?

[alfred russel]

You are taking the Paul statement for the laity not for the clergy.  It is assumed that the clergy is intended to be more "Christ-like", then the common laity.  You dismissed this for some odd reason, something about how they weren't all Jewish messiahs.

Paul says nothing about the clergy. Presumably, the clergy didn't even exist in its present form when Paul was writing. So how can Paul's statement be the religious basis for having unmarried clergy?

On its face, Paul's statement would apply to both laity and clergy.

Also, if you want to "imitate Christ" in such matters totally external to his ministry like his marital status, why not in other ways? Make priests get circumcised. Christ was. 

Malthus, all your references go back to scripture. But in catholicism scripture isn't the only source of doctrine: tradition also is one, as well as major church councils. For instance, while I am aware that some popes were married, the vast majority have not been, and that crosses all the historically documented eras as well as the last 1000 years or so. The preference for celibate clergy is longstanding and well established.

I also find the idea that Raz posted, that Paul's statement would indicate clergy should be celibate as that is the most holy state, to be a reasonable one, if not definitive. (I would think that when a priest announces he absolutely can not resist having sex with the woman in the first pew, he would be encouraged to leave the priesthood and marry her first, rather than violate Paul's decree and have sex with her outside of marriage).

You made this statement:

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

I posted one, others have posted others, and for some reason you aren't content to just disagree with them, but are apparently denying their validity as reasons altogether.

I don't get it. At the end of the day, I think that enforced celibacy for priests is a disasterous policy for the church, and one that isn't necessary based on its own scriptures, theology, and traditions. But there are religious reasons for it, and is something the church is going to have to figure out on its own. 

[Valmy]

I am not talking about starting a global crusade but more of what would happen if you found out one of your work colleagues is molesting kids. Would you be happy to look away and have it covered up?

I am not a very good example as I had pretty strong feeling about this long before I had kids since I worked with molested kids.  In fact I sort of lost it on this board a few times about things like this back in the day

In kind of a strange way I think I would be less likely to go on some sort of crusade about it now, since the stakes for me are higher.  If it cost me my job or put me in serious jeopardy to expose said molestation I would definitely have to consider that in context of my current obligations.  I would probably still do it but something about being a parent makes you less militant, again hence the old management trick of getting employees to settle down and have kids...it tends to make them easier to control.

[alfred russel]

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.

Wait, what??? (not on the murdering abortion doctor front but on the just war front)

Yes the bible sells not to kill people. Then it tells stories about god leading his people into wars and smiting their enemies. I would read the bible and say these are a collection of mythical stories from ancient times that really shouldn't be used as a basis of modern morality, and that we shouldn't presume they are internally consistent. But if you are, the just war theory isn't out of left field.

[garbon]

I would not have created this thread if I knew Raz would spend the first 4 pages shitting in it.

[Malthus]

Malthus, all your references go back to scripture. But in catholicism scripture isn't the only source of doctrine: tradition also is one, as well as major church councils. For instance, while I am aware that some popes were married, the vast majority have not been, and that crosses all the historically documented eras as well as the last 1000 years or so. The preference for celibate clergy is longstanding and well established.

They aren't *my* references. They are the references *you* put forward from a Catholic source as the "religious reason". I have demonstrated that these sources do not say what the Catholic source claims they say.

Saying "tradition is a source of doctrine" merely makes your position self-referential: a position has a religious reason because it is traditional. It is religious because the Church has done it. Tradition alone cannot create a "teaching". There has to be some purpose. 

Even the Church des not proceed that way, as Shelib has pointed out - certain matters are matters of doctrine and cannot be changed without destroying the Church: the Church cannot, for example, start denying the divinity of Jesus. Others are not - and according to Shelib, this is not.

I also find the idea that Raz posted, that Paul's statement would indicate clergy should be celibate as that is the most holy state, to be a reasonable one, if not definitive. (I would think that when a priest announces he absolutely can not resist having sex with the woman in the first pew, he would be encouraged to leave the priesthood and marry her first, rather than violate Paul's decree and have sex with her outside of marriage).

Except that there is nothing whatever in Paul's statement to indicate that his words were meant for priests. On their face, they were meant for everyone. For example, he specifically mentions widows. How many widows are also priests?

You made this statement:

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

I posted one, others have posted others, and for some reason you aren't content to just disagree with them, but are apparently denying their validity as reasons altogether.

No you haven't posted any. No-one has, because such does not exist. Consider what the term "doctrine" means - it is the body of teachings of the Church. What "teachings of the Church" require unmarried priests? Surely not 'because that's the way it is'. Intertia is not a "teaching". It is not a "religious purpose". 

I don't get it. At the end of the day, I think that enforced celibacy for priests is a disasterous policy for the church, and one that isn't necessary based on its own scriptures, theology, and traditions. But there are religious reasons for it, and is something the church is going to have to figure out on its own.

I'm saying that there simply isn't anything in Catholic doctrine that requires unmarried priests. I don't know why you don't get it - it's an objectively true statement, one which a Cardinal of the Church apparently agrees with. There may be *traditional* reasons, but these are not matters of *doctrine* and are so not *religious reasons* unless the notion of a "religious reason" is watered down so much as to be meaningless.

[Malthus]

On the priests abusing boys front, I'm quite willing to believe that the problem is statistically no worse than in any other comparable religion or profession in terms of numbers. I have no idea what the statistics say, but I can believe it. What makes it a true problem for the Church was of course its institutional response - to cover it up, to move abusing priests about.

It is plausable that this response was exacerbated by two factors: (1) a staffing shortage; and (2) the indulgence with which "sexual sinning" was viewed by the Church.

It is further plausable that both of these are exacerbated by the celebacy thing.

[garbon]

Hey, Malt, it is celibacy.

[alfred russel]

I'm saying that there simply isn't anything in Catholic doctrine that requires unmarried priests. I don't know why you don't get it - it's an objectively true statement, one which a Cardinal of the Church apparently agrees with.

Hold it there--lets back that one up.

I have never said that there is anything in Catholic doctrine that requires unmarried priests. As I stated before (ver batim), I think that enforced celibacy for priests is a disasterous policy for the church, and one that isn't necessary based on its own scriptures, theology, and traditions.

But that is different than saying their isn't a religious reason for something. There is a gap between a doctrine requiring something and a religious reason for a policy that is short of a doctrinal requirement. Some people have religous reasons for wanting to get rid of the celibacy requirement, and some people have religious reasons to keep it.

Saying "tradition is a source of doctrine" merely makes your position self-referential: a position has a religious reason because it is traditional. It is religious because the Church has done it. Tradition alone cannot create a "teaching". There has to be some purpose.

Take it up with the catholic church. Martin Luther did. I realize that is self-referential, but it is their religion. It is part of the reason they are so much slower to adopt to the modern world.

[Razgovory]

Parents feel much strongly, on a psychological level, about punishing child abuse than people who have no children

Man I don't know.  I am way to tired to care as much about child abuse in far away places now that I using up my energy raising kids.

I am not talking about starting a global crusade but more of what would happen if you found out one of your work colleagues is molesting kids. Would you be happy to look away and have it covered up?

Would you?  After all, you are one of the people who have have defended pedophiles here.  You aren't likely to have children and are dismissive of "breeders".  If such an act would be a career limiting move would some one as self absorbed as yourself be willing to ruin your career for the sake of crotch fruit?

What the fuck are you even trying to say with this gibberish? Are you off your meds?

I thought it was clear enough.  Would you do something about a coworker guilty of sex crimes if it meant a ruined career?

[Razgovory]

On the priests abusing boys front, I'm quite willing to believe that the problem is statistically no worse than in any other comparable religion or profession in terms of numbers. I have no idea what the statistics say, but I can believe it. What makes it a true problem for the Church was of course its institutional response - to cover it up, to move abusing priests about.

It is plausable that this response was exacerbated by two factors: (1) a staffing shortage; and (2) the indulgence with which "sexual sinning" was viewed by the Church.

It is further plausable that both of these are exacerbated by the celebacy thing.

The church is hardly the only organization to have an institutional response of covering it up.  As time has gone by organization after organization from Penn State to the Boy Scouts have had this problem.  I imagine that you'll find that institutions defending their members from accusations is more common then not.

[Malthus]

Hold it there--lets back that one up.

I have never said that there is anything in Catholic doctrine that requires unmarried priests. As I stated before (ver batim), I think that enforced celibacy for priests is a disasterous policy for the church, and one that isn't necessary based on its own scriptures, theology, and traditions.

Then why were you taking such issue with my statement which you specifically quoted as follows?

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

[Emphasis added]

You claimed:

I posted one, others have posted others, and for some reason you aren't content to just disagree with them, but are apparently denying their validity as reasons altogether.

Are you now saying you were wrong and you haven't actually posted any? If so, we aren't disagreeing, right?

But that is different than saying their isn't a religious reason for something. There is a gap between a doctrine requiring something and a religious reason for a policy that is short of a doctrinal requirement. Some people have religous reasons for wanting to get rid of the celibacy requirement, and some people have religious reasons to keep it.

Saying "tradition is a source of doctrine" merely makes your position self-referential: a position has a religious reason because it is traditional. It is religious because the Church has done it. Tradition alone cannot create a "teaching". There has to be some purpose.

Take it up with the catholic church. Martin Luther did. I realize that is self-referential, but it is their religion. It is part of the reason they are so much slower to adopt to the modern world.

Last I checked, Luther wanted to change doctrine.

Sure, I'll readily admit that there are "traditional" reasons for unmarried priests. What I'm saying is that beyond that (which is obvious and uncontroversial) there is no *religious reason* for this particular tradition - nothing based on actual Christian teachings (as opposed to institutional inertia) which would require it.

[Malthus]

On the priests abusing boys front, I'm quite willing to believe that the problem is statistically no worse than in any other comparable religion or profession in terms of numbers. I have no idea what the statistics say, but I can believe it. What makes it a true problem for the Church was of course its institutional response - to cover it up, to move abusing priests about.

It is plausable that this response was exacerbated by two factors: (1) a staffing shortage; and (2) the indulgence with which "sexual sinning" was viewed by the Church.

It is further plausable that both of these are exacerbated by the celebacy thing.

The church is hardly the only organization to have an institutional response of covering it up.  As time has gone by organization after organization from Penn State to the Boy Scouts have had this problem.  I imagine that you'll find that institutions defending their members from accusations is more common then not.

I'm not claiming that the Church is the only organization with this problem.

The difference is, of course, that the Church (unlike say Penn State) is supposed to be a font of morality - indeed, claims to be the font of morality. So a scandal of this sort bites harder.

The other issues - whether that scandal is made more prevelant or likely by celibacy - I find plausable, but of course, by its nature such a thing is hard to prove.