Should Priests Be Able To Marry?

[linga_is_no1]

In your opinion should Catholic priests in the Western rite be able to marry? Would it be too hard for a priest to be both a father and a totally committed priest, or would he be able to deal with both? And would it bolster up vocation numbers?

 

[Richo83]

In your opinion should Catholic priests in the Western rite be able to marry? Would it be too hard for a priest to be both a father and a totally committed priest, or would he be able to deal with both? And would it bolster up vocation numbers?

Anglican priests seem to cope fine.

 

[linga_is_no1]

Anglican priests seem to cope fine.

The Anglican Church is falling to pieces, this has been contributed by some to its non-traditional decisions such as allowing married priests, women priests, stupid theology and also gay policy. The Anglican Church is not a good example of what the Church should become or imitate in my opinion, in fact it should probably stay as far away from that as possible.

 

[Dry Rot]

Would it be too hard for a priest to be both a father and a totally committed priest, or would he be able to deal with both?

The Anglican Church is falling to pieces, this has been contributed by some to its non-traditional decisions such as allowing married priests, women priests, stupid theology and also gay policy.

What's wrong with having female Catholic priests?

Are you worried about receiving the Holy Sacrament from someone who is menstruating?

 

[Goldenblue]

I agree with you DR, I do not see any problem with women priests either.

Maybe these priests should marry, it may stop them from touching up young boys.

Problem with the Catholic church is it needs to get away from the middle ages and into the 21st century.

 

[Dry Rot]

I agree with you DR, I do not see any problem with women priests either.

Maybe these priests should marry, it may stop them from touching up young boys.

Problem with the Catholic church is it needs to get away from the middle ages and into the 21st century.

linga_is_no_1 has suggested that I could lead the flock here seeking the Truth - see http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13362364&postcount=21

But what is their argument against women priests? Have they borrowed some Muslim ideas?

- Father Rot

 

[Goldenblue]

So tell me Linga, what is wrong with female priests?

 

[Richo83]

The Anglican Church is falling to pieces, this has been contributed by some to its non-traditional decisions such as allowing married priests, women priests, stupid theology and also gay policy. The Anglican Church is not a good example of what the Church should become or imitate in my opinion, in fact it should probably stay as far away from that as possible.

Marriage? Women? Tell me linga, are you married? Have you ever spoke to a woman? They are people too you know and they don't bite (well most of them don't anyway). I can't see what difference it makes if a man or a woman tells you that the lawd has saved you.

 

[linga_is_no1]

So tell me Linga, what is wrong with female priests?

We don't have women priests for a number of reasons:

1) Christ did not have female apostles
2) Christ was not female himself
3) Other Churches that have women priests have suffered and have been damaged beyond repair.

Surely if Christ wanted female priests he would have chosen females apostles, he didn't. He broke every other social convention to think of, he spoke to Samaritans (forbidden by law), he dined with prostitutes and tax collectors but he did not chose women to lead his Church. And in the end Jesus can't be wrong.

 

[Roylion]

The rule of celibacy in the Catholic church is an ecclesial law and not a doctrine, and therefore it can be changed at any time by the Pope. Clearly the rule has been changed in the past.

Celibacy in the Catholic church appears to have been first applied at least a couple of hundred years after the formation of the Church. 1 Timothy 3:2-4 is often used by those to argue against the rule of celibacy and suggests that a bishop should be "the husband of one wife" and "one who ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection". That certainly indicates that in the early history of the church married men could indeed become clergy. A number of early priests and bishops in the Catholic church were married and had children.

The first known written law about celibacy is from the Council of Elvira. (about AD 305) Canon 33 of that Council contained the first known written law about celibacy, applicable to bishops, priests, and deacons, which proclaimed that they ought to keep complete continence in relation to their wives, and that anyone who had broken this rule should be excluded

The Second Council of Carthage (AD 390) stipulated that married clerics had to observe continence with their wives. This law that was officially inserted as church law for the African Church, by St. Augustine of Hippo.

Pope Siricius in 385 and 386 issued two laws about celibacy stating that married men could ot become deacons unless they remained celibate.

The Breviatio Ferrandi of AD 550 stated that
- bishops, priests and deacons were to abstain from relations with their wives;
- any priest who got married was to be deposed; if he commits the sin of fornication he is to do penance;
- in order to safeguard the reputation of ministers of the Church and to help them observe chastity, clerics were not to live with women other than close family relations.

In the seventh century another Church law stated that a cleric who contracted marriage may not return to his wife after ordination and may no longer give her children, as this would be the equivalent of infidelity to the promise he had made to God.

In France the Council of Metz (AD 888) forbade priests to keep a woman in their homes;

The Council of Rheims (909), urged that association with women should be forbidden, and also cohabitation with them.

The Council of Mainz (888) recalled that the prohibition on cohabitation with women even included the wife whom the priest had previously married

The First Lateran Council in 1123 and the Second Lateran Council in 1139 also forbade priests to marry or keep concubines while they were priests. However they were still allowed to marry before becoming priests.

The fact of being married was formally made a canonical impediment to ordination as a priest only with the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

 

[Richo83]

We don't have women priests for a number of reasons:

1) Christ did not have female apostles
2) Christ was not female himself
3) Other Churches that have women priests have suffered and have been damaged beyond repair.

Surely if Christ wanted female priests he would have chosen females apostles, he didn't. He broke every other social convention to think of, he spoke to Samaritans (forbidden by law), he dined with prostitutes and tax collectors but he did not chose women to lead his Church. And in the end Jesus can't be wrong.

Jesus had many female disciples, and one of the main figures of Catholicism, Mary was a woman. Anyway you have no ability to know why Jesus picked men, it could quite possibly be that he thought that women wouldn't be able to be apostles because they wouldn't have been listened to (a problem still remaining with people like you it seems). Basically, you are calling Jesus a sexist, bold move there.

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

What's wrong with having female Catholic priests?

The number of young boys volunteering to be touched up would skyrocket

 

[Ice-Wolf]

We don't have women priests for a number of reasons:

1) Christ did not have female apostles
2) Christ was not female himself
3) Other Churches that have women priests have suffered and have been damaged beyond repair.

Surely if Christ wanted female priests he would have chosen females apostles, he didn't. He broke every other social convention to think of, he spoke to Samaritans (forbidden by law), he dined with prostitutes and tax collectors but he did not chose women to lead his Church. And in the end Jesus can't be wrong.

It could be argued that he did, the Gospels we have now are revisionist written after the fact and to tell a specific interpretation, all others were thrown out and they made a good attempt to destroy them.

There is good debate on Mary Magdalene and exactly where she fit in.

 

[linga_is_no1]

Jesus had many female disciples, and one of the main figures of Catholicism, Mary was a woman. Anyway you have no ability to know why Jesus picked men, it could quite possibly be that he thought that women wouldn't be able to be apostles because they wouldn't have been listened to (a problem still remaining with people like you it seems). Basically, you are calling Jesus a sexist, bold move there.

You clearly don't understand or know what I'm talking about, Jesus chose the 12, the 12 were all men. Like I say Jesus broke many social conventions of the time, in fact he was killed for breaking social conventions, but he did not chose to have female apostles. This was just another convention for him to break and he chose not to, Jesus can never be wrong.

Catholicism honours Mary above all other saints and she is second only to the Holy Trinity, she was not an apostle. How can Jesus the son of God be sexist? Clutching at straws.

 

[Qsaint]

You clearly don't understand or know what I'm talking about, Jesus chose the 12, the 12 were all men. Like I say Jesus broke many social conventions of the time, in fact he was killed for breaking social conventions, but he did not chose to have female apostles. This was just another convention for him to break and he chose not to, Jesus can never be wrong.

Catholicism honours Mary above all other saints and she is second only to the Holy Trinity, she was not an apostle. How can Jesus the son of God be sexist? Clutching at straws.

Linga the Catholic church is hardly renowned for the facts. Richo is correct their were definately female apostles, there are gospels written or attributed to women. When the bible was modified by Constantine, females were put in secondary positions or defiled like Mary M. 12 is a symbolic number like 40 years or 7 days

 

[theGimp]

Ok, so Jeebus liked the blokes.

This helps to explain many things when you think about it.

 

[Richo83]

You clearly don't understand or know what I'm talking about, Jesus chose the 12, the 12 were all men. Like I say Jesus broke many social conventions of the time, in fact he was killed for breaking social conventions, but he did not chose to have female apostles. This was just another convention for him to break and he chose not to, Jesus can never be wrong.

Catholicism honours Mary above all other saints and she is second only to the Holy Trinity, she was not an apostle. How can Jesus the son of God be sexist? Clutching at straws.

Firstly he can, but this isn't about a matter of truth, its a matter of opinion and yet still, Jesus never opined that women can't be priests. If you can find a passage of the bible which Jesus said so I'd accept, but until then...

Qsaint is absolutely correct, the bible was edited by men and so has no female voice, but rather, at the time there were many female disciples. Anyway even if he had no female followers (in which I ask, why didn't the females follow him then) suggesting that because his 12 was all male was a suggestion that he would refuse a woman to become a priest is a very long bow. What makes more sense is that he chose men as he knew they would be listened to and followed. If he got Mary, Jane, Sue and June to write the gospels they would never been published. 12 is a symbolic number like 3 or 666 or 40. It doesn't mean that only the 12 were special and the rest were nobodies. Read the gospel of Mary if you still doubt.

 

[CAS79]

You clearly don't understand or know what I'm talking about, Jesus chose the 12, the 12 were all men. Like I say Jesus broke many social conventions of the time, in fact he was killed for breaking social conventions, but he did not chose to have female apostles. This was just another convention for him to break and he chose not to, Jesus can never be wrong.

Catholicism honours Mary above all other saints and she is second only to the Holy Trinity, she was not an apostle. How can Jesus the son of God be sexist? Clutching at straws.

Even if this be so please point out where Jesus says "Do not have Female leaders, Do not have female priests, do not have female teachers"

If you are to follow your own advice just because Jesus did not do something himself than you ensure you follow your own advice.

Don’t get married and don't breed.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Even if this be so please point out where Jesus says "Do not have Female leaders, Do not have female priests, do not have female teachers"

If you are to follow your own advice just because Jesus did not do something himself than you ensure you follow your own advice.
Don’t get married and don't breed.

I agreed, just because it's not in the bible doesn't mean it didn't happen, I would be more surprised if Jesus didn't have a wife and children seeing as how he didn't even start his preaching till his 30's.

All that matters is his message not the peripheral details of his life.

 

[Richo83]

The poll is going well, 87% saying yes.

 

[Daveo]

Ok, so Jeebus liked the blokes.

This helps to explain many things when you think about it.

Sexual Repression can do strange things to a person

 

[Dogga79]

Does it say anywhere in the bible that priests shouldn't marry?

If this is a rule that was made in house, then surely it can change.

 

[medusala]

Firstly he can, but this isn't about a matter of truth, its a matter of opinion and yet still, Jesus never opined that women can't be priests. If you can find a passage of the bible which Jesus said so I'd accept, but until then...

Interesting choice of tense there Richo.

 

[ManWithNoName]

They can't marry? What the hell sort of crazy organisation is this?

 

[Richo83]

Interesting choice of tense there Richo.

Hmm?