Women Can Be Priests
Reply to post

Yes to married priests!

Page: 12345.. > >> Showing page 1 of 14 - Powered by APG vNext Trial
Author
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
2006/08/02 04:58:13 (permalink)

Yes to married priests!

Since married priests are the norm in our ukrainian catholic church, we see no need for for women priests to fill a shortage.
post edited by Sophie - 2007/02/04 23:25:40

262 Replies Related Threads

    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    RE: married priests 2006/08/02 14:38:42 (permalink)
    What will fill the void in the Latin Rite is orthodoxy, not rebellion.  The Church is moving in a more orthodox direction.  Those who continue in this rebellion of ordaining women priests will be publically separated from the Church.  The winnowing of the wheat and the chaff.
    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    RE: married priests 2007/01/17 23:39:50 (permalink)
    a discussion about married priests arose in the "Why Do You Visit" thread.
    Because we have a dedicated thread, those posts are copied here as contributions to this dialogue.

    i came to see your defence for this idea i belive that wemon should not be allowed to be ordained becouse priests ,and deacons to wich i belive the lord jesus christ is calling me should imitate jesus christ our lord and savior to the fullist thus meaning this priests, and deacons should be hetrosexual, MALE, Chaste, unmarried serviants of the lord jesus christ
    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    RE: married priests 2007/01/17 23:40:20 (permalink)
    what do you think about married priests in the eastern rite catholic churches? not really priests?
    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    RE: married priests 2007/01/17 23:40:55 (permalink)
    To the person who thinks married people should never be priests. What are you thinking?

    how is the reality in the very beginning of our holy, ancient and beautiful church

    that Peter and many other disciples were MARRIED

    when called by Jesus and many women travelled with Jesus's group- the wives of these men as well as supporters-

    how do you deal with that REALITY_ oooh- married people ooooh chosen by Jesus during his time on earth .

    The horror and the shame that Jesus chose these MARRIED people to carry out his great teaching!

    The horror and the shame that Jesus allowed women to preach and spread his gospel ;Samaritan woman .

    Do not let anti women and anti sex hysteria prevent you from acknowledging Jesus's ministry to us
    as it was in its very beginning and should continue to this day.


    Please does anyone else realize that Peter and others were married men and Jesus did not appreciate divorce and the casting aside of wives? So these holy men were married. What do you say Therese, the above "no married men" writer and others. Your input please. I do not understand the wrongheaded perpetuation of the no married priests idea when our beginning apostles were married. Sincerely, Patrick


    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    RE: married priests 2007/01/17 23:41:27 (permalink)
    Again from Patrick

    I do realize this website is about women priests- to which I agree- however the prejudice and denial of married men ( and women) is also a mistake as Jesus chose married people to be his apostles.

    This is another "tradition" of my Catholic church that defies what Jesus did when he chose his group of men and women to spread his Gospel.

    Sincerely, from Patrick.
    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    RE: married priests 2007/01/17 23:41:57 (permalink)
    Remember, it is Paul who poses an opinion which he clearly qualifies, is only his opinion and not an idea that comes from God or Jesus, that one should try to be unmarried.
    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    RE: married priests 2007/01/17 23:42:58 (permalink)

    ORIGINAL: Guest

    To the person who thinks married people should never be priests. What are you thinking?

    how is the reality in the very beginning of our holy, ancient and beautiful church

    that Peter and many other disciples were MARRIED

    when called by Jesus and many women travelled with Jesus's group- the wives of these men as well as supporters-

    how do you deal with that REALITY_ oooh- married people ooooh chosen by Jesus during his time on earth .

    The horror and the shame that Jesus chose these MARRIED people to carry out his great teaching!

    The horror and the shame that Jesus allowed women to preach and spread his gospel ;Samaritan woman .

    Do not let anti women and anti sex hysteria prevent you from acknowledging Jesus's ministry to us
    as it was in its very beginning and should continue to this day.


    Please does anyone else realize that Peter and others were married men and Jesus did not appreciate divorce and the casting aside of wives? So these holy men were married. What do you say Therese, the above "no married men" writer and others. Your input please. I do not understand the wrongheaded perpetuation of the no married priests idea when our beginning apostles were married. Sincerely, Patrick





    Patrick, I'm going to educate you here a little bit.

    The Church in the western rite chose to have celibacy for a variety of reasons. One very important reason is the demanding nature of the vocation itself.

    As Paul himself says (who was not married),

    1 Cor. 7:32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
    33: but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
    34: and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
    35: I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.


    Keep in mind though, this is only a discipline of the Church in the Western Rite. There are married priests in the Eastern Rite, and also there are some married priests in the Western Rite with a special dispensation. No one has a "right" to be a priest.

    J

    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    RE: married priests 2007/01/17 23:43:58 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: Guest

    Remember, it is Paul who poses an opinion which he clearly qualifies, is only his opinion and not an idea that comes from God or Jesus, that one should try to be unmarried.



    Yet the Church has the authority to declare what she expects from her clergy.

    Plus Jesus wasn't married except to the Church.

    J
    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    RE: married priests 2007/01/17 23:44:44 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: Guest

    Remember, it is Paul who poses an opinion which he clearly qualifies, is only his opinion and not an idea that comes from God or Jesus, that one should try to be unmarried.



    Also Jesus said:

    Mt 19:11 But he said to them, "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.
    12: For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."


    J

    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    RE: married priests 2007/01/17 23:45:56 (permalink)
    Patrick-
    many people do realize the early apostles were married and that their wives were their greatest strength in talking to strangers and gaining acceptance in strange lands, (NOBODY is inclined to trust a single man who is a stranger in town! A man with a wife who appears to love him has exhibited that he can be trusted.... because SHE trusts him!) Of course a wife (and child/ren) on the road slow one's travel, and so Paul too had a valid point.... one does not make quick time traveling with wife and child/ren!
    Likewise, very many people do not know this history, but will recite whatever they were indoctrinated to believe on the matter as the word of God. It is not their fault. My mother never used her left hand at all. She was originally left-handed, but every time she used her left hand to write with, the nuns had smacked her left hand with a ruler. As a result, she grew up and no matter how tired her right hand got, she never used her left hand at all. Indoctrination dies hard when people believe it's the word of God. It cripples their bodies, their emotions, their spirits, their lives.

    The real issue at hand, however, I regard as a far greater problem. The real issue at hand is that Roman Catholics generally have very little idea of just how much of Church theology and canon law, is based not on Christ at all, but on ROMAN LAW.

    It's like the case with Our Lady. The Bible has references to Christ's brothers and sisters.... Our Lady's OTHER children!
    For all of its professed concern about the degradation of women, and for all of its supposed glorification of the significance and vital importance of the role of motherhood, the Magisterium in the early years of the Church officially DECIDED that Our Lady CANNOT have had other children, and that's official carved-in-stone dogma.

    It doesn't matter that there is clearly Biblical verification that she did indeed HAVE additional children with her husband Joseph and that they appeared one day while Christ was lecturing and He did not stop His lecture, but stressed that those in attendance were no less important family to Him than they.
    It doesn't matter that Our Lady was officially ROBBED of her other children and motherhood.
    It doesn't matter that Our Lady was completely ROBBED of her sexuality and biology and normal womanhood.
    It doesn't matter that women for all these centuries have been ROBBED of their sanity by having been given a role model of womanhood that is a COMPLETE PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY- that of being both MOTHER and SEXLESS VIRGIN.
    It doesn't matter how much that messes up women's minds and women's ways of dealing with the realities of their sex and their bodies and relating to themselves as human beings, and how that affects their relationships with everyone else.
    It doesn't matter how much trying to emulate a COMPLETE PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY as a role model gives women an intense sense of personal shame and inadequacy for not ever being able to adequately emulate this role model.
    It doesn't matter that the role model of FAMILY for all these centuries has been represented by a sexless sterile marriage between an old man a young completely helpless and vulnerable woman with NO life and NO identity of her own.
    It doesn't matter how much suffering women have endured as a result of not believing they deserved anything more or better as women than NO life and NO identity of their own as human beings.
    It doesn't matter how much this disfunctional model messes up people's minds and values and ways of relating to themselves and others.
    It doesn't matter how much this disfunctional model affects the children and how they relate to one another.
    It doesn't matter how much this disfunctional model fuels LACK OF COMMUNICATION in marriage.
    It doesn't matter how much this disfunctional model fuels ADDICTION by undermining women and men's spiritual growth and development.
    It doesn't matter that this is a completely DISFUNCTIONAL model of biology, motherhood, and family....

    All that mattered to the ROMAN Church was that Jesus of Nazareth, had to meet the legal qualifications of a ROMAN god under ROMAN law. In order to qualify as A ROMAN god, under ROMAN law, one has to be the product of a virgin raped by a Roman god, otherwise one just doesn't qualify under ROMAN law as a ROMAN god.

    You're just not ROMAN god material if your mother is a normal healthy woman and a Jewish housewife with other children and a functional physically, emotionally, and spiritually healthy model of family.
    It's thanks to ROMAN law that we have a Church that based itself on the model of a disfunctional empire of single male soldiers under Constantinian, a Roman general. It's thanks to ROMAN law that we have a role model of disfunctional womanhood and disfunctional family as our icon.
    We also have a Magisterium of single men who have demonstrated themselves to be completely incapable of identifying any problem whatsoever, let alone taking steps to fix it, because the only role anyone in the Magisterium ever occupied as part of a family was that of a child.

    -Aura Waters
    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    RE: married priests 2007/01/17 23:46:32 (permalink)
    Aura Waters you seem to be very disfunctional in your thinking.

    J
    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    RE: married priests 2007/01/17 23:47:02 (permalink)
    It seems that people here don't have any faith. They don't believe in the Church or its authority. They don't follow the constant teaching of Christ and His Church. The people who advocate women in the priesthood have no regard for Jesus or His authority which He has delegated to His Church guided by the Holy Spirit. It seems that many people on this site are having a midget-minded meltdown!

    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    RE: married priests 2007/01/17 23:47:38 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: Guest
    Aura Waters you seem to be very disfunctional in your thinking.
    J



    At such point that you yourself are a woman who has successfully raised both sons and daughters and maintained a successful 30 year marriage we'll discuss it.
    -Aura Waters
    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    RE: married priests 2007/01/17 23:49:05 (permalink)
    Greetings in the peace of Christ!~ I have been away for a couple of days. It is welcoming to come home to new contributions in our community!

    Patrick, your question about married priests is a good one. I am glad you raised it. I grew up in Ukrainian Catholic rite where married priests are koshur. For practical reasons, I now practice in the Roman rite. Perfectly at home in both ( does this make me an ambidextrous Catholic?!) When someone asks me about celibacy in the Roman rite, my response comes from the byzantine observer in me. I can't quite figure out what the hang up is about married priests. The Roman rite is:

    * ok with a married priest if he is a married Lutheran or Anglican priest who converts to Catholicism
    * ok with married priests in the byzantine and oriental rites
    * ok with married deacons
    * not ok with their own priests being married


    What's up? If I were:

    * a Roman Catholic priest struggling with celibacy, having married Catholic priests all around would be a source of irritation.
    * a Roman Catholic, I would be perturbed that those who are authentically called to both marriage and the priesthood must make a choice.


    I haven't yet heard one convincing argument as to why mandatory celibacy must be universally preferred in the Roman rite.

    I don't know Roman Catholic history as well as I would like. Aura's explanation about the Roman roots makes sense. My foggy notion was that the celibacy rule sprang to life in the early middle ages when rising numbers of paupered wives, mistresses, and children of deceased or philandering priests were making claims for support/estates against Church property. The celibacy rule arose for practical reasons: no family ties = no claims by dependents.

    To many Ukrainian Catholics, it is confusing to observe 'old guard' Roman rite faithful vociferously (sp?) resist any relaxation of the rule of celibacy yet also hear them sing generous lauds and praises for Byzantine faithfulness to early Christian church traditions (which includes the early church tradition of married priests!)

    We (byzantines) don't get it:

    * they love our liturgy and style of mass -- often flocking over for the mass because of unhappiness with the post Vat. II RC Church;
    * yet they are not bothered by our married priests;
    * and they still cry 'heresy' at the suggestion of married RC priests.
    * they also are not bothered by married convert anglican and lutheran priests.


    Personally, I prefer a spiritually grounded, joyful priest. It doesn't matter whether s/he is married or celibate. It is the spiritual, grounded and joyful qualities that make the difference.

    I don't buy the argument that no ties = more freedom to serve. I've experienced the 'brat pack' martini swilling flirting and philandering eternal boy bachelor priest who demonstrates no hope of every growing up and is therefore never fully serving. From my point of view, his presence diminishes respect for the priesthood as a whole. I am sympathetic for the very good priests, who, though struggling to authentically live the discipline of celibacy, are sometimes tarred with broad strokes aimed at the swing set of their fraternity. I am also heartbroken by the excellent priests who can no longer serve because they answered an authentic call to married life.

    From my humble experience: parishioners served by a happy and unfrustrated spiritually focused joyful priest -- whether married or celibate-- are much more satisfied with parish life and Catholic faith.

    The notion of optional celibacy that the Byzantine rite preserves makes perfect sense to me. It respects:

    * the authentic individual call to celibate life which some peope have. In being true to call, they unfold completely as the wonderful gifts from God for the world they are meant to be. They offer themselves joyfully and generously.
    * the authentic call to married life which many people have. Through it, they too unfold completely as the wonderful gifts for the world they are meant to be. They too offer themselves joyfully and generously--supported by the presence of a companion and possibly some children. Hold these people back from their authentic call to married life: anticipate unhappy, thwarted gifts unfolding for grumpy(?) service in the Church.


    If someone tries to muster up the energy to live a life serving an unauthentic call to celibacy, it is my observation that WAY too much energy goes into trying to manage sexual tension, sexual urges, sexual frustration, etc, etc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Vocational, sexual frustration = energy drained and therefore incapable of serving in the manner that their highest capacities could achieve.

    What is so darn special about celibacy that its a MUST? What is wrong with being married and serving the Church? Deacons do it very well. Some parishes have only deacons serving. Are they less well served? Why the insistence that square pegs be made to fit into round holes? No room for imagination? Why should the people of God be deprived of their priests? Why should their priests be deprived of living out their complete authentic call?

    hmmm....thinking cap is on. Thanks for asking the question, Patrick. I look forward to more sharing!

    With our eyes fixed on Christ!
    In the peace of His friendship that we share,
    Therese
    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    RE: married priests 2007/01/17 23:50:33 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: Guest
    http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp



    The article via the link above includes this line from Paul's letter to the Corinthians:

    "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).

    Although I don't agree with Paul's implication that one marries because of weakness or an inability to control one's passions, I do think he more less hits the nail on the head. Better to be authentic to one's calling. Why try be an acrobat if you've got no skill for it?

    In peace,
    Therese
    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    RE: married priests 2007/01/17 23:51:20 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: Guest

    It seems that people here don't have any faith. They don't believe in the Church or its authority. They don't follow the constant teaching of Christ and His Church. The people who advocate women in the priesthood have no regard for Jesus or His authority which He has delegated to His Church guided by the Holy Spirit. It seems that many people on this site are having a midget-minded meltdown!



    Hello,

    I am not completely clear as to what you mean. My eyes are fixed on Christ and I feel quite at home here. I am not clear as to why being here means I have no regard for Jesus? Can you say a little more?

    I would like to understand.

    In the peace of Christ's friendship which we share,
    Therese

    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    RE: married priests 2007/01/17 23:52:23 (permalink)
    The Church in the western rite chose to have celibacy for a variety of reasons. One very important reason is the demanding nature of the vocation itself.



    Keep in mind though, this is only a discipline of the Church in the Western Rite. There are married priests in the Eastern Rite, and also there are some married priests in the Western Rite with a special dispensation.




    Hello Joseph,

    It's good to hear from you. I appreciate your presence here. I think I've said before: your questions make me think! No sloughing off allowed when you are around!

    The above two statements from your earlier post strike me as being a bit conflictual in nature.

    If the Roman rite's perception is that the demands of the vocation of priest mean that only celibates can serve, are people in the byzantine and oriental rites getting poorer quality service because their priests are married? Or is it less demanding to be a byzantine catholic priest than a roman catholic priest?

    Curious. What do you think?

    In Christ's peace and grateful that you're here,

    Therese
    Guest
    Super Member
    • Total Posts : 14706
    • Reward points : 0
    • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
    • Status: online
    RE: married priests 2007/01/17 23:53:54 (permalink)
    If someone tries to muster up the energy to live a life serving an unauthentic call to celibacy, it is my observation that WAY too much energy goes into trying to manage sexual tension, sexual urges, sexual frustration, etc, etc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Vocational, sexual frustration = energy drained and therefore incapable of serving in the manner that their highest capacities could achieve.



    another thought:

    If energy is a non-renewable resource -- ie, we get to spend it once -- is spending the energy needed to properly manage an unauthentic call to celibacy really the wisest use of a resource? If one didn't have to spend energy on 'management,' could that bundle of resource be channeled into more joyful and liberated service for the people of God?

    Also wondering --struggling for words to respectfully express this: has mandatory celibacy become more a part of an effort to project 'cultural mystique' about the priesthood than it is an essential part of call to service? Do we receive mandatory celibacy as a reason to put someone up on a pedestal?

    I mean, if we byzantines have both celibate and married priests, what is that we are missing out?

    Curious? Anyone think I am out to lunch on this?

    In Christ's peace,
    Therese

    Page: 12345.. > >> Showing page 1 of 14 - Powered by APG vNext Trial
    Guest
    Quick Reply: (Open Full Version)
      Enter the random characters shown
    Submit Post
    Jump to:
    © 2020 APG vNext Trial Version 4.6

    This website is maintained by the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research.

    Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research

    Visitors to www.womenpriests.org since 11 January 2014

    Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research