I know their reasons why and I completely disagree with them. There is no reason a woman shouldn't be allowed to be a priest or deacon. That's my opinion. I ain't changing it because the Church says I should.

 

I can respect if someone has a disagreement with what the church says SO Long as that person has taken the time to study why the church reaches as it does instead of just going off gut feeling. Also, when it was also taught by the apostles, that gives it more credence.

Let priests marry while we are at it.

 

My pastor gave a very well thought out homily about why this was a bad idea. His main point was how can a priest split the time needed to be devoted to his family vs. that needed to be devoted to his parishioners. He spoke about it very eloquently, so much so that I left the camp of those believing that priests should be allowed to marry.

My pastor gave a very well thought out homily about why this was a bad idea. His main point was how can a priest split the time needed to be devoted to his family vs. that needed to be devoted to his parishioners. He spoke about it very eloquently, so much so that I left the camp of those believing that priests should be allowed to marry.

 

That's always the best reasoning I've been given. Priesthood and marriage are both vocations. A husband should be 100% dedicated to his wife and family, and a priest should be 100% dedicated to his parish. If you're doing both, then neither gets the attention they should be getting.

Edited August 5, 201610 yr by Colonels_Wear_Blue

My pastor gave a very well thought out homily about why this was a bad idea. His main point was how can a priest split the time needed to be devoted to his family vs. that needed to be devoted to his parishioners. He spoke about it very eloquently, so much so that I left the camp of those believing that priests should be allowed to marry.

 

Not apples to apples, but the majority of the pastors at my church(Sojourn) are married and they have time.

That's always the best reasoning I've been given. Priesthood and marriage are both vocations. A husband should be 100% dedicated to his wife and family, and a priest should be 100% dedicated to his parish. If you're doing both, then neither gets the attention they should be getting.

 

I agree with this in theory. In fact, I've always thought it was something unique about Catholicism that I've liked. At the same time, I don't have an alternative idea, but I've always found it ironic that priests are in charge of investigating annulments and offer marriage counseling.

My pastor gave a very well thought out homily about why this was a bad idea. His main point was how can a priest split the time needed to be devoted to his family vs. that needed to be devoted to his parishioners. He spoke about it very eloquently, so much so that I left the camp of those believing that priests should be allowed to marry.

 

So, if allowing priests to marry would INCREASE the number of priests, say maybe even double or triple the number of priests, then wouldn't the lack of time factor be eliminated. Instead of relying on one priest to do all the duties, it could be handled by two or three priests, something that is not possible now due to the declining number of men going into the priesthood. Then, neither the priest's family nor the church will be neglected, but all will be cared for.

 

If it is suggested that a person who has a family can't be as devoted to the Lord as a single person can, that is poppycock. Peter had a family. Abraham had a family. Practically all the priests and Levites in the Old Testament had a family. They divided the work among the many.

 

These pragmatic concerns about why priests can't marry just don't seem to add up to me. I would think it would be helpful for a person who has experienced family life with its attendant blessings and trials to offer spiritual counsel from their experience of how their faith intersects with the challenges that many others face. Obviously, there would still be single priests who can relate to single adults in the congregation, as well.

 

There is no Scriptural warrant for limiting the priesthood to singles. Not being Catholic, I can't put my finger on where the notion first became accepted.

There is no Scriptural warrant for limiting the priesthood to singles. Not being Catholic, I can't put my finger on where the notion first became accepted.

 

The decision was made in the 1100's after a thousand years of priests not being required to be celibate. The decision was made with a wealth of past history to draw from.

So, in a nutshell, the guy is saying in the article if you have a wife (and by proxy a family) then you can't properly minister? Isn't that a slap in the face to the thousands of protestant ministers/preachers/pastors? Sure sounds like it to me.

So, in a nutshell, the guy is saying in the article if you have a wife (and by proxy a family) then you can't properly minister? Isn't that a slap in the face to the thousands of protestant ministers/preachers/pastors? Sure sounds like it to me.

 

The Catholic Church and its Magisterium often has made their decisions based on "best interests", as it were. Sure, there is nowhere in the Bible that it says, "Thou shalt eat fish on Fridays during lent", or "Thou shalt fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday". However, there are many places in the Bible where it speaks of the virtue in fasting and in abstaining from things. In the interest of encouraging the Catholic faithful to practice fasting and abstaining, and to seek out that virtue, and to keep Catholics mindful of Jesus's sacrifice, the Magisterium codified fasting and abstaining by saying, "we're going to do this on Fridays during Lent". It was a "best interest" of sorts.

 

Similarly, I don't think they are saying it's absolutely impossible that someone be a responsible and attentive married man and priest....rather, they are kind of saying it's more likely that you can do a really good job of your vocation, be it marriage or consecrated life, by choosing one or the other and not both. That way there won't be any possibility that you'll have a priest that isn't quite attentive enough to his family because of his church, or vice versa. That (among other reasons) is very simplified explanation of why they Catholic Church opts for requiring celibacy.

 

 

Also, not to sound smart alec, but the Catholic Church was THE Christian church in 1139 when they decided that priests would remain celibate in 1139. It wasn't until almost 400 years later that protestant churches came to be, and then they eventually opened the doors to married ministers. Could that not be seen, similarly, as a slap in the face of the thousands of celibate Catholic priests? Truthfully, I think at its heart the Catholic Church isn't particularly concerned with what or whom they offend with their teachings, so long as they think the teaching is rooted in virtue and truth.

The Catholic Church and its Magisterium often has made their decisions based on "best interests", as it were. Sure, there is nowhere in the Bible that it says, "Thou shalt eat fish on Fridays during lent", or "Thou shalt fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday". However, there are many places in the Bible where it speaks of the virtue in fasting and in abstaining from things. In the interest of encouraging the Catholic faithful to practice fasting and abstaining, and to seek out that virtue, and to keep Catholics mindful of Jesus's sacrifice, the Magisterium codified fasting and abstaining by saying, "we're going to do this on Fridays during Lent". It was a "best interest" of sorts.

 

Similarly, I don't think they are saying it's absolutely impossible that someone be a responsible and attentive married man and priest....rather, they are kind of saying it's more likely that you can do a really good job of your vocation, be it marriage or consecrated life, by choosing one or the other and not both. That way there won't be any possibility that you'll have a priest that isn't quite attentive enough to his family because of his church, or vice versa. That (among other reasons) is very simplified explanation of why they Catholic Church opts for requiring celibacy.

 

 

Also, not to sound smart alec, but the Catholic Church was THE Christian church in 1139 when they decided that priests would remain celibate in 1139. It wasn't until almost 400 years later that protestant churches came to be, and then they eventually opened the doors to married ministers. Could that not be seen, similarly, as a slap in the face of the thousands of celibate Catholic priests? Truthfully, I think at its heart the Catholic Church isn't particularly concerned with what or whom they offend with their teachings, so long as they think the teaching is rooted in virtue and truth.

 

So, to sum it up, you are saying you agree with me in the fact that yes, it was probably a slap in the face. In the same token you are saying...but oh well, the Catholic Church is right and if they stepped on thousands of preaches toes (an by extension millions of protestant followers) they really aren't concerned about it (and not saying they should be, just as whatever the Pope says has no bearing on what I think/believe).

So, to sum it up, you are saying you agree with me in the fact that yes, it was probably a slap in the face. In the same token you are saying...but oh well, the Catholic Church is right and if they stepped on thousands of preaches toes (an by extension millions of protestant followers) they really aren't concerned about it.

 

I guess if you want to look at it that way, you can. I suppose I just struggle to see how a group of people who split apart in order to practice different teachings would be feel like they are having their faces slapped when the original group states that they still believe in their original teachings and restates the reasoning behind their teaching.

 

I'm not saying I necessarily look at it this way, but wouldn't the protestant churches effectively have been doing the same thing to the Catholic Church when they say, "We disagree with you and we dissent so greatly that we're going to start a new denomination of Christianity because we think your teachings about certain things are wrong"?

^ Yes.

@BigVMan23, at this point, we are not slapping one another in the face, nor should we feel that way. we are simply asking in retrospect why one another practices their faith the way they do. It is for a point of understanding.

 

No reason to fight over it. Our forefathers and -mothers did have to struggle over these issues and their struggles created space for disagreement. Because some of them suffered and died, we don't have to. the world is entirely different today politically and this allows for differences to coexist. In the day when there was a monarch and he or she decided which faith all of his or her subjects would adhere to disagreement led to suffering and death, which our forbears thought worth the price.

 

C_W_B did pretty well at summarizing the rationale for RC practice. And he is absolutely right, it should not matter what anyone else thinks. what is important is whether the practice and/or teaching is rooted in virtue and truth.

 

I am Evangelical Protestant by conviction. Anyone else is welcome to be anything they want to be. I do believe it is far better for them to be what they are based on well-considered conviction and not "just because." I think C_W_B's answer shows that his faith is a well-considered conviction.

Another basis for priestly celibacy is II Cor Chap 2 (or is it Chap 3 or 4?) where Paul calls upon the Corinthians to remain celibate if they can and only marry if they cannot. The church back then interpreted that as being married is fine but being celibate is better and those who take vows should strive to be better. Eastern Orthodox Christian interpreted to only apply to bishops so I do think there is some justification to it. Now, if Vatican Council III were to happen and the Rom Cath Church were to change to allowing married men to become priests, I would not really mind either way.