Most Catholics 'in favour of married priests'

Izymunz

I think priests should be allowed to marry.
Frankly I do not understand why they are not.
I know that I am treading on sensitive issues here but I think the atrocities of the 'Murphy Report' could have been lessened in severity if priests had been given the opportunity to 'settle down'.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/most-catholics-in-favour-of-married-priests-547172.html

Most people surveyed seemed to have agreed^ but the reasons are not given.

suicide_circus

Izymunz wrote: »

I think priests should be allowed to marry.
Frankly I do not understand why they are not.
I know that I am treading on sensitive issues here but I think the atrocities of the 'Murphy Report' could have been lessened in severity if priests had been given the opportunity to 'settle down'.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/most-catholics-in-favour-of-married-priests-547172.html

Most people surveyed seemed to have agreed^ but the reasons are not given.

The problem with this survey is that, of the 1000 'catholics' polled, only 1 in 3 attended mass weekly! So the majority of these catholics were basically non-practicing, a la carte types who dont accurately represent the faithful core at all. Survey is pretty useless tbh.

The Brigadier

Izymunz wrote: »

I think priests should be allowed to marry.
Frankly I do not understand why they are not.
I know that I am treading on sensitive issues here but I think the atrocities of the 'Murphy Report' could have been lessened in severity if priests had been given the opportunity to 'settle down'.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/most-catholics-in-favour-of-married-priests-547172.html

Most people surveyed seemed to have agreed^ but the reasons are not given.

As I understand it the vast majority of sexual abuse has been homosexual in nature. I don't see how being married would have any impact on either homosexual or paedophilic tendencies.

prinz

suicide_circus has hit the nail on the head there pretty much.

The Brigadier wrote: »

As I understand it the vast majority of sexual abuse has been homosexual in nature. I don't see how being married would have any impact on either homosexual or paedophilic tendencies.

It wouldn't. Just like rates of abuse haven't been shown to be higher in the celibate RCC as compared to other Christian or non-Christian denominations/religions where the clergy are allowed to marry. Celibacy did not make people abuse.

djk1000

Pointing out the blindingly obvious here, but Catholicism isn't a democracy, surveys are pointless, debate is pointless.

The Brigadier

prinz wrote: »

suicide_circus has hit the nail on the head there pretty much.



It wouldn't. Just like rates of abuse haven't been shown to be higher in the celibate RCC as compared to other Christian or non-Christian denominations/religions where the clergy are allowed to marry. Celibacy did not make people abuse.

http://www.catholicleague.org/99-98-of-priests-are-innocent/

The recent piece above shows in America that 99.98% of priests are completely innocent of any wrongdoing.

I have read figures that show the likelihood of Anglican clergy to abuse to be higher than Catholic clergy. Marriage isn't really a factor in this. If you are the sort of sicko who likes to abuse little boys then marrying a nice woman isn't going to change that.

Doc Farrell

djk1000 wrote: »

Pointing out the blindingly obvious here, but Catholicism isn't a democracy, surveys are pointless, debate is pointless.

That would be true if history, that is events that have occurred in the past, did not actually exist. If you look at some of the saints mentioned in daily calendars over the last few days you will see that they were reformers. Give it a shot.

ShooterSF

Why did the survey not ask had any of these people considered a protestant church that agrees with their views? That's the interesting question here imo. As an outsider to both it boggles the mind that you would remain in one group and try and change it when a very similar group is already in parts making these changes or already have...

Izymunz

I have done more research and I have to agree with you. There is no plausible evidence to suggest that celibacy triggers paedophilia.
Nevertheless, priests should be allowed to marry.

PDN

We have a thread related to Clerical Child Abuse. Let's not go down that route in this thread.

Wile E. Coyote

suicide_circus wrote: »

The problem with this survey is that, of the 1000 'catholics' polled, only 1 in 3 attended mass weekly! So the majority of these catholics were basically non-practicing, a la carte types who dont accurately represent the faithful core at all. Survey is pretty useless tbh.

So because you don't go to mass weekly you're opinion shouldn't count? I like the way you picked that stat but forgot to include the fact that 51% went monthly and only 5% never went to mass.

seamus

Flawed survey in reality.

If you don't agree with the church teachings, then you're not a Roman Catholic. There is no scope to disagree, you're either with the Pope or you're not a Roman Catholic.

In reality the result is, "All Roman Catholics agree with the ban on priest marriage. 770 other people we surveyed disagree with it".

Doc Farrell

Whether one is in favor of celibacy or not the reality is that either married deacons or priests occurs or, over the next ten years, between a quarter and half of all churches will have to close. Look at the average age of the priests in the acp.

prinz

The number of alleged Roman Catholics in the state according to our latest census would highlight the meaningless nature of these surveys when it comes to people actively involved in their religious community etc.

prinz

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Whether one is in favor of celibacy or not the reality is that either married deacons or priests occurs or, over the next ten years, between a quarter and half of all churches will have to close. Look at the average age of the priests in the acp.

Is there any reason to believe that allowing them to marry will lead to a large upsurge in seminarians, large enough to undo the decline the church is going through not just in this country but in many others?

paddyandy

Religion by popular demand is it ?

Skrynesaver

ShooterSF wrote: »

Why did the survey not ask had any of these people considered a protestant church that agrees with their views? That's the interesting question here imo. As an outsider to both it boggles the mind that you would remain in one group and try and change it when a very similar group is already in parts making these changes or already have...

I think that a lot of "Irish Catholics" adopt the label as a badge of sectarian tribalism rather than faith. (cf Daragh Ó Briain's Catholic atheist routine)

The fact that many people who would self-identify as Catholic are in fact Protestant in their belief seems to bear this out. I have met many older Catholics who when asked if they beieve in transubstantiation (after the concept is explained) deny vehemently that this is Catholic doctrine.

qrrgprgua

Izymunz wrote: »

I think priests should be allowed to marry.
Frankly I do not understand why they are not.
I know that I am treading on sensitive issues here but I think the atrocities of the 'Murphy Report' could have been lessened in severity if priests had been given the opportunity to 'settle down'.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/most-catholics-in-favour-of-married-priests-547172.html

Most people surveyed seemed to have agreed^ but the reasons are not given.

.... Pedophiles don't stop being Pedophiles because they are married..

are you saying not having a wife/Girl friend is an excuse to abuse?

Hetersexual men don't suddenly abuse boys because they don't have a wife..


Priestly celibacy is a tradition of the latin rite for the last thousand years. Its not part of Catholic Faith.

Celibacy is not the problem.. Lack of Prayer, formation, vocational discernment is.

Bopidyboo

I'm in favour of married priests. I think they have such lonely lives and miss out on so much of the joys of life.

MrTimewalk

Catholic priests USED to be allowed marry however as women tend to live longer than men it was too much of a financial burden on the church to continue to provide for wives and families. Much easier if when the priest dies the church takes all their assets.

Nervous Wreck

seamus wrote: »

Flawed survey in reality.

If you don't agree with the church teachings, then you're not a Roman Catholic. There is no scope to disagree, you're either with the Pope or you're not a Roman Catholic.

In reality the result is, "All Roman Catholics agree with the ban on priest marriage. 770 other people we surveyed disagree with it".

But the law of the Catholic Church, as it stands, is that, once you're baptised and registered as RC, you are RC for life (since they have rescinded the right to 'opt out' in recent years) irrespective of whether or not you are practicing. Therefore, as far as the Pope is concerned, you are wrong and all of these people are RC (ironically, making you not RC, by your definition, for disagreeing with him), meaning this survey is valid.

ShooterSF

Skrynesaver wrote: »

I think that a lot of "Irish Catholics" adopt the label as a badge of sectarian tribalism rather than faith. (cf Daragh Ó Briain's Catholic atheist routine)

The fact that many people who would self-identify as Catholic are in fact Protestant in their belief seems to bear this out. I have met many older Catholics who when asked if they beieve in transubstantiation (after the concept is explained) deny vehemently that this is Catholic doctrine.

I think that's the most probable answer but wouldn't it be nice to see a poll like this actually put that question to these people. It's not really fair to those who follow the Catholic faith that some people of protestant faith but determined to hold on to the "catholic" name would see it changed to meet their views.

lmaopml

It's perfectly fine to struggle with one or more of the teachings of the Catholic faith, and also call oneself a 'Catholic', every Catholic struggles at some stage with things - and very many gain greater understanding as they mature and learn for themselves as an adult should about their faith and it's incredible beauty.

However, it's not perfectly fine to openly dissent from basic Christian teachings like women priests etc. especially as a Priest. There can and never will be women priests - there is no point in asking over and over and over when the Church doesn't have the authority to make a woman a Priest, no more than she can change Scripture and delete bits based on some grand consensus within a time period and place, that's make it as you go Christianity which becomes something other than Christianity.

However, Priests being married is not a dogma, it's not even a doctrine, it's a disciplin in the Latin rite and is of course something that could change should the need arise or good reason. Everybody is free to have an opinion of course, however not free to misrepresent their vows if they are a Priest. Starting up dialogue is not difficult, it's accepting the answer that seems to be the problem.....

gimmebroadband

Here is a link to a pdf document on many of the disadvantages of being a married priest, well worth a read.

http://www.sikyon.freeserve.co.uk/marriedpriests.pdf

suicide_circus

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

So because you don't go to mass weekly you're opinion shouldn't count? I like the way you picked that stat but forgot to include the fact that 51% went monthly and only 5% never went to mass.

Tbh if you cant be arsed going to mass regularly, you probably dont take the whole Catholic thing too seriously, in which case I dont think your opinion on the running of the church is too important.

Onesimus

it's strange that you should think that all the abuse would have been lessened if priests were allowed to marry. Many married men also abused children. So that pretty much puts a tight seal on that theory.

Irishchick

Going to mass every week does not make one a good catholic. I know plenty of people who go to mass every Sunday who could not be considered good Catholics.

suicide_circus

Irishchick wrote: »

Going to mass every week does not make one a good catholic. I know plenty of people who go to mass every Sunday who could not be considered good Catholics.

I never said anything about "good" Catholics, there is no such thing, sinners every one of 'em.
What I'm saying is, if you're not bothered going to mass regularly, catholicism probably isnt a big deal to you so why should you have any input?

Irishchick

Actually for the people I am referring to, Catholicism is a big part of their lives.

The Brigadier

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

But the law of the Catholic Church, as it stands, is that, once you're baptised and registered as RC, you are RC for life (since they have rescinded the right to 'opt out' in recent years) irrespective of whether or not you are practicing. Therefore, as far as the Pope is concerned, you are wrong and all of these people are RC (ironically, making you not RC, by your definition, for disagreeing with him), meaning this survey is valid.

No, you can become a lapsed Catholic. You just can't become an ex-Catholic.

suicide_circus

The Brigadier wrote: »

No, you can become a lapsed Catholic. You just can't become an ex-Catholic.

But surely, given that the church has no legal power, it id entirely up to the individual's state of mind?

I was once a boyscout, I took an oath, but I left when the organisation no longer served a purpose for me. Am I an ex boyscout or a lapsed boyscout?

HoggyRS

suicide_circus wrote: »

But surely, given that the church has no legal power, it id entirely up to the individual's state of mind?

I was once a boyscout, I took an oath, but I left when the organisation no longer served a purpose for me. Am I an ex boyscout or a lapsed boyscout?

Maybe in your opinion and that of many other people, but not in the eyes of the church.

There used be a way of leaving the church(I recall seeing the form you had to fill out) but the RC has since discontinued that practice. Catholic for life now once your parents make the decision for you as a tot.

gimmebroadband

You may want to opt out as an unbeliever in Catholic Doctrine, but you cannot undo the Sacrament of Baptism, which leaves a permanent indelible mark on the soul!

suicide_circus

The church keeping people on the books against their will eh?
I guess the indelible smudge on my soul only counts if I believe in a soul?
What if I join another church or religion?
What does one have to do to get excommunicated these days?

smokingman

I'm curious to ask what the Protestant posters here think of the fact that 77% of Irish catholics or whatever it is according to this survey are effectively Protestant in their views on Christianity?

Is it a vilification of your church and its doctrine?

Cossax

smokingman wrote: »

I'm curious to ask what the Protestant posters here think of the fact that 77% of Irish catholics or whatever it is according to this survey are effectively Protestant in their views on Christianity?

Is it a vilification of your church and its doctrine?

I'm sure ISAW will be along shortly to tell you that 90% of Irish born citizens are RCC members despite 70% + of them being effectively Protestant.

PDN

smokingman wrote: »

I'm curious to ask what the Protestant posters here think of the fact that 77% of Irish catholics or whatever it is according to this survey are effectively Protestant in their views on Christianity?

Is it a vilification of your church and its doctrine?

I don't see that they are effectively Protestant at all. They might reject certain Catholic teachings, but they certainly haven't embraced Protestant teachings.

Run_to_da_hills

The ironic thing about this controversy over clergy marriage is that St Peter whom the Catholic Church claim to be the first pope was a married man, what ever went wrong?

Jesus cures Peters Mother in Law. "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever." -Matthew 8:14

Keylem

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The ironic thing about this controversy over clergy marriage is that St Peter whom the Catholic Church claim to be the first pope was a married man, what ever went wrong?

Jesus cures Peters Mother in Law. "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever." -Matthew 8:14

Scriptures mentions Peter's Mother-In-Law, nowhere does it mention his wife, which indicates to me that he was a widow!

The Brigadier

PDN wrote: »

I don't see that they are effectively Protestant at all. They might reject certain Catholic teachings, but they certainly haven't embraced Protestant teachings.

Well, rejecting Catholic teachings is kind of the definition of being a protestant.

PDN

The Brigadier wrote: »

Well, rejecting Catholic teachings is kind of the definition of being a protestant.

No, it certainly isn't. For example, someone who rejects the existence of God is hardly a Protestant.

The Brigadier

PDN wrote: »

No, it certainly isn't. For example, someone who rejects the existence of God is hardly a Protestant.

You do know how protestantism started don't you?

wiki wrote:

The Protestant Reformation was the 16th-century schism within Western Christianity initiated by Martin Luther, John Calvin and other early Protestants sparked by the 1517 posting of Luther's Ninety-five theses. The efforts of the self-described "reformers", who objected to ("protested") the doctrines, rituals, and ecclesiastical structure of the Roman Catholic Church, led to the creation of new national Protestant churches.

PDN

The Brigadier wrote: »

You do know how protestantism started don't you?

I do, and better than you apparently. The term Protestant was first applied to the princes who protested against the Diet of Speyer in 1529. They were protesting against the notion that the Emperor could dictate religious policy within their areas. So they signed a Protestation stating that each Prince should have the right to determine what religion would be practiced in the lands where they ruled.

These princes were indeed Lutherans, but the term Protestant was originally denoting those who demanded more autonomy in their regions (similar to the debate in the US when States pass laws that are then overruled by Federal courts). It was only later that it began to be inaccurately applied to Calvinists, Zwinglians or Anabaptists.

Today many non-Catholic Christians, myself included, reject the label of Protestant as inaccurate and misleading. I don't protest against the Catholic Church at all.

Btw, Muslims reject Catholic teachings, and Eastern Orthodoc Christians reject RCC teachings - but it would be rather asinine to call them Protestants.

Run_to_da_hills

PDN wrote: »

I don't protest against the Catholic Church at all.

Even if it makes a claim to be the true church.

PDN

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Even if it makes a claim to be the true church.

No, still no need to protest. After all, if the guy next door starts claiming that he's Napoleon then there's no need to protest against him, is there?

The Brigadier

PDN wrote: »

I do, and better than you apparently. The term Protestant was first applied to the princes who protested against the Diet of Speyer in 1529. They were protesting against the notion that the Emperor could dictate religious policy within their areas. So they signed a Protestation stating that each Prince should have the right to determine what religion would be practiced in the lands where they ruled.

These princes were indeed Lutherans, but the term Protestant was originally denoting those who demanded more autonomy in their regions (similar to the debate in the US when States pass laws that are then overruled by Federal courts). It was only later that it began to be inaccurately applied to Calvinists, Zwinglians or Anabaptists.

Today many non-Catholic Christians, myself included, reject the label of Protestant as inaccurate and misleading. I don't protest against the Catholic Church at all.

Btw, Muslims reject Catholic teachings, and Eastern Orthodoc Christians reject RCC teachings - but it would be rather asinine to call them Protestants.

Really, now you are just being argumentative for the sake of it. You are clearly unaware of the different meanings of the term "protestant". I am well aware of the German princes. However context is key. Protestant can refer to those Christians who object to the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is a pretty common usage of the term. Disappointed that you haven't come across it before.

I take it you think that Iain Paisley's Protestant Telegraph was just angry about the Diet of Speyer reaffirming the Diet of Worms when he was ranting about the Catholic Church?

irishconvert

suicide_circus wrote: »

The problem with this survey is that, of the 1000 'catholics' polled, only 1 in 3 attended mass weekly! So the majority of these catholics were basically non-practicing, a la carte types who dont accurately represent the faithful core at all. Survey is pretty useless tbh.

Are you part of the faithful core? If so, can you tell me why priests are not allowed to marry? Thanks.

irishconvert

seamus wrote: »

Flawed survey in reality.

If you don't agree with the church teachings, then you're not a Roman Catholic. There is no scope to disagree, you're either with the Pope or you're not a Roman Catholic.
.

That should like what Bush said in the aftermath of 9/11, you're either with us or against us. Then he sent the troops to Afghanistan and Iraq which resulted in 100,000s of deaths.

Ronnie Binge

The Brigadier wrote: »

Really, now you are just being argumentative for the sake of it. You are clearly unaware of the different meanings of the term "protestant". I am well aware of the German princes. However context is key. Protestant can refer to those Christians who object to the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is a pretty common usage of the term. Disappointed that you haven't come across it before.

I take it you think that Iain Paisley's Protestant Telegraph was just angry about the Diet of Speyer reaffirming the Diet of Worms when he was ranting about the Catholic Church?

I'm familar with this line of argument, I remember it from the early 1980s, where the only difference between the scholarly and holy George Otto Simms, onetime Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and Ian Paisley at his anti-Catholic height, was deemed to be one of manners.

irishconvert

qrrgprgua wrote: »

.... Pedophiles don't stop being Pedophiles because they are married..

are you saying not having a wife/Girl friend is an excuse to abuse?

Hetersexual men don't suddenly abuse boys because they don't have a wife..


Priestly celibacy is a tradition of the latin rite for the last thousand years. Its not part of Catholic Faith.

Celibacy is not the problem.. Lack of Prayer, formation, vocational discernment is.

Not natural for a man to not have sex. He becomes sexually frustrated. Traditionally priests/brothers spend a lot of time in the company of boys. The nuns ran the girl's schools. If it was the opposite way and the ones who abused spend most of their time with young girls then I believe mostly girls would have been abused. Kind of like how a lot of men on long term jail sentences resort to gay sex while in jail and return to heterosexual life when they are released.

irishconvert

PDN wrote: »

I do, and better than you apparently. The term Protestant was first applied to the princes who protested against the Diet of Speyer in 1529. They were protesting against the notion that the Emperor could dictate religious policy within their areas. So they signed a Protestation stating that each Prince should have the right to determine what religion would be practiced in the lands where they ruled.

These princes were indeed Lutherans, but the term Protestant was originally denoting those who demanded more autonomy in their regions (similar to the debate in the US when States pass laws that are then overruled by Federal courts). It was only later that it began to be inaccurately applied to Calvinists, Zwinglians or Anabaptists.

Is this article an accurate description of the differences between Catholics and Protestants? http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-Catholic-Protestant.html

On reading this I think that I was always more of a Protestant than a Catholic! Although I don't believe that faith alone can save you, but for all the other differences the Protestant view sits more comfortably with me.