Declining Priesthood

Safehands

The RC church allows married vicars to become priests in the UK. A practical solution to resolve the current shortage of clergy in this country, would be to allow any ordained priest who left the priesthood in order to get married, to be reinstated as a part time clergyman. If it works in the UK it should work in Ireland.

Roger Buck

Allowing an Anglican priest to marry is not the same as re-admitting ordained priests to celebrate the Sacraments

The Catholic Church does not permit priests anywhere to marry. Although it is obviously well-aware of the "practical solution" you suggest, Safehands, it remains cognisant of the profound theology that has guided it in this matter for many centuries now.

Roger Buck

It might be added that the priest crisis is far, far greater elsewhere in Europe. Living in France, I knew a priest who had 40 parishes. I am not kidding. However, the Church remains true to its vision and tries to steer away from compromises with modern pragmatism.

indy_man

It has crossed my mind recently that if we have been praying so much for vocations and they are not coming could God be asking us to steer in a different direction, one with the potential of married priest.

Personally I would prefer many good holy celibate unmarried priests to come forward but they are not yet and any big number.

Safehands

Roger Buck wrote: »

Allowing an Anglican priest to marry is not the same as re-admitting ordained priests to celebrate the Sacraments
The Catholic Church does not permit priests anywhere to marry. Although it is obviously well-aware of the "practical solution" you suggest, Safehands, it remains cognisant of the profound theology that has guided it in this matter for many centuries now.

There are a lot of priests in the UK who have wives and families. They work as part time priests. Some of them have jobs during the week then at the weekends they perform their clerical duties, saying Mass, hearing confessions etc. If it is OK for that situation to prevail in the UK it should be OK here also.

endacl

I studied in Maynooth. A walk along the long corridor in St Patrick's seminary provides an interesting stroll through the steady decline of vocations. The graduating class pictures are all in frames of the same size, but the pictures of individual seminarians get bigger and bigger year to year and decade to decade, to fill the same space. The oldest could have 30-40 individuals pictured. Some of the most recent only have 3-4.

Out of respect for the forum, I won't indicate whether I think this is a bad thing, or a good thing.

lazybones32

Safehands wrote: »

There are a lot of priests in the UK who have wives and families. They work as part time priests. Some of them have jobs during the week then at the weekends they perform their clerical duties, saying Mass, hearing confessions etc. If it is OK for that situation to prevail in the UK it should be OK here also.

A lot of those Anglicans joined the CC because of the liberalising of their own church. And the solution to the 'crisis' in the CC is to liberalise?

Christ still calls men and women to follow Him totally and to forsake certain relationships for the sake of the Kingdom and His Gospel. Ireland may become a mission field for foreign priests or people may not have the gift of 2-3 Masses in every Church every day. He will not abandon His Church. We must not jump the gun and compromise integrity out of fear or panic. If the Church can survive bloody persecutions and its own members, a dip in numbers should be viewed as a minor bump.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

lazybones32 wrote: »

A lot of those Anglicans joined the CC because of the liberalising of their own church. And the solution to the 'crisis' in the CC is to liberalise?

Christ still calls men and women to follow Him totally and to forsake certain relationships for the sake of the Kingdom and His Gospel. Ireland may become a mission field for foreign priests or people may not have the gift of 2-3 Masses in every Church every day. He will not abandon His Church. We must not jump the gun and compromise integrity out of fear or panic. If the Church can survive bloody persecutions and its own members, a dip in numbers should be viewed as a minor bump.

Christ does or the RC does?

Genuine question. If protestant vicars are allowed to marry, who's doing the calling?

Christ may not abandon his chruch (whichever church that may be) but the people might, and in an age of multi-media and openess of information, He/they have a lot of work to do, and I'd be curious to know what the stratagies are.

Safehands

lazybones32 wrote: »

Christ still calls men and women to follow Him totally and to forsake certain relationships for the sake of the Kingdom and His Gospel. Ireland may become a mission field for foreign priests or people may not have the gift of 2-3 Masses in every Church every day. He will not abandon His Church. We must not jump the gun and compromise integrity out of fear or panic. If the Church can survive bloody persecutions and its own members, a dip in numbers should be viewed as a minor bump.

Do you think that those ex anglican priests are somehow "second rate" priests and less worthy because they are married?

Mrs OBumble

indy_man wrote: »

It has crossed my mind recently that if we have been praying so much for vocations and they are not coming could God be asking us to steer in a different direction, one with the potential of married priest.

Personally I would prefer many good holy celibate unmarried priests to come forward but they are not yet and any big number.

Indeed, many people believe that God has answered such prayers - and the answer is "No".

What is more important to you, the priest's marital status, or their gender?

lazybones32

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Christ does or the RC does?

Genuine question. If protestant vicars are allowed to marry, who's doing the calling?

Christ may not abandon his chruch (whichever church that may be) but the people might, and in an age of multi-media and openess of information, He/they have a lot of work to do, and I'd be curious to know what the stratagies are.

Christ does. There are passages in Scripture where he is quite clear and the RC tries to remain faithful to it.
Catholic priests and Protestant ministers and vicars are not the same - the RC doesn't accept the validity of the vicarage as being of the same value as the priesthood.
People are free to join or leave the Church, yet Christ will never cease to 'call' people to be with him. Popular opinion is no measure of truth or a judgement of correct/incorrect, so I wouldn't look at the majority's decision as being a reflection of what is right, good or true.
I'm not privy to God's plan to fulfill human history so I can't reveal the strategy to you. There is a lot of work to do; always has been but most of us are simply called to witness and the seed will grow of its own accord.

Safehands wrote: »

Do you think that those ex anglican priests are somehow "second rate" priests and less worthy because they are married?

From what I understand, decisions are made on a case-by-case basis (not every vicar can become a priest). There is a big difference between someone converting to the RC and one who wants to quit the priesthood in order to marry and then rejoin the priesthood. Holiness isn't dependent on having sexual relations.

katydid

Roger Buck wrote: »

Allowing an Anglican priest to marry is not the same as re-admitting ordained priests to celebrate the Sacraments

The Catholic Church does not permit priests anywhere to marry. Although it is obviously well-aware of the "practical solution" you suggest, Safehands, it remains cognisant of the profound theology that has guided it in this matter for many centuries now.

What theology would that be, exactly?

katydid

lazybones32 wrote: »

A lot of those Anglicans joined the CC because of the liberalising of their own church. And the solution to the 'crisis' in the CC is to liberalise?

Christ still calls men and women to follow Him totally and to forsake certain relationships for the sake of the Kingdom and His Gospel..

Where in scripture does Christ call on men and women to "forsake certain relationships" in order to follow him?
And when you say "follow him totally", are not all Christians called on to follow him totally? He never set aside a priesthood who would follow him totally as opposed to another level of Christians who would follow him partially. In fact, he never set aside a priesthood at all.

katydid

Safehands wrote: »

There are a lot of priests in the UK who have wives and families. They work as part time priests. Some of them have jobs during the week then at the weekends they perform their clerical duties, saying Mass, hearing confessions etc. If it is OK for that situation to prevail in the UK it should be OK here also.

If so, they are former Anglican priests.

katydid

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Christ does or the RC does?

Genuine question. If protestant vicars are allowed to marry, who's doing the calling?

Christ may not abandon his chruch (whichever church that may be) but the people might, and in an age of multi-media and openess of information, He/they have a lot of work to do, and I'd be curious to know what the stratagies are.

Protestant priests (not all are vicars, that's a rule, like a parish priest in the RC church), pastors, Greek and Russian Orthodox...they are all allowed to marry. The RCC is in a minority in this one. Priests were married in the early days of the church; the Roman church introduced celibacy to protect its property rights. Nothing at all to do with religion

katydid

indy_man wrote: »

It has crossed my mind recently that if we have been praying so much for vocations and they are not coming could God be asking us to steer in a different direction, one with the potential of married priest.

Personally I would prefer many good holy celibate unmarried priests to come forward but they are not yet and any big number.

What about the elephant in the room...the countless number of people who have vocations and would make excellent priests, but are prevented because they don't have male genitalia?

Safehands

katydid wrote: »

If so, they are former Anglican priests.

Indeed Katy, they are now Catholic priests who are accepted by the Pope as such. He also accepts that they are married with families. So married priests are accepted by the RC Church. So why can a man who is already ordained and chose to marry a person he loves, not resume his carreer on a part time basis. It would cost nothing, as he would not be paid.

Benny_Cake

It's worth remembering that Eastern Rite Catholic churches have always accepted married men for ordination, so married Catholic priests are not unheard of.

Safehands

Benny_Cake wrote: »

It's worth remembering that Eastern Rite Catholic churches have always accepted married men for ordination, so married Catholic priests are not unheard of.

It's not unheard of in the Roman Catholic Church either.

Benny_Cake

katydid wrote: »

What about the elephant in the room...the countless number of people who have vocations and would make excellent priests, but are prevented because they don't have male genitalia?

Tongue firmly in cheek-the Quaker in me would say that the elephant in the room is the idea of a separate ordained ministry, common to both Catholicism, Anglicanism and Orthodoxy.

As I understand it, clerical celibacy is seen by the RCC as a discipline which could be changed quite easily. Not the case with women priests. A knowledgeable Roman Catholic would be able to explain the difference better than me.

Benny_Cake

Safehands wrote: »

It's not unheard of in the Roman Catholic Church either.

Agreed, but the numbers are vanishingly small. Whereas if you take the Ukrainian-Greek Catholic church, which has over 4 million members and is in full communion with Rome - it has always had married clergy. So it can be done and has been done, on quite a large scale.

katydid

Safehands wrote: »

Indeed Katy, they are now Catholic priests who are accepted by the Pope as such. He also accepts that they are married with families. So married priests are accepted by the RC Church. So why can a man who is already ordained and chose to marry a person he loves, not resume his carreer on a part time basis. It would cost nothing, as he would not be paid.

I just got the feeling that that post implied that RC priests could be married as long as they remained part time. Maybe I read it wrong.

Of course it would make sense that accepting married priests of one kind means that there is no reason not to accept other married priests. But the RC attitude to the priesthood is illogical; take the fact that it sets the possession of male genitals as being necessary to the role.

The question of non-stipendiary priests is a different matter. The Anglican church, for example, has many non-stipendiary priests, who hold down ordinary jobs and carry out their sacerdotal duties without any kind of payment. Of course, they can be married or single, male or female. If the RCC insist on their illogical demand that priests be single and male, there is no reason why single men with full time jobs couldn't be non-stipendiary clergy.

Carlos Orange

katydid wrote: »

What about the elephant in the room...the countless number of people who have vocations and would make excellent priests, but are prevented because they don't have male genitalia?

If the Church of England is anything to go by that will only provide temporary respite. It has only been 20 years but already the number of female priests is declining. More of a softer landing that a solution to the decline in the number of priests.

katydid

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Tongue firmly in cheek-the Quaker in me would say that the elephant in the room is the idea of a separate ordained ministry, common to both Catholicism, Anglicanism and Orthodoxy.

As I understand it, clerical celibacy is seen by the RCC as a discipline which could be changed quite easily. Not the case with women priests. A knowledgeable Roman Catholic would be able to explain the difference better than me.

Fair point on your first comment...although the concept of priesthood is one that is engrained in mainstream Christianity for two thousand years now, and I don't see it being questioned. So to be honest, I don't see it as the elephant in the room. Maye the mouse in the room?

Yes, clerical celibacy can be changed at any time. However, although some RC clergy and faithful will argue that the issue of women priests is different, I have yet to hear or see any argument which backs that up. There is no mention anywhere in the Gospels about the role of women (there's no mention of priesthood anyway, as you well know, going back to your first point) and the only sentence of scripture that is ever used is one line from Paul. A rather weak argument.

katydid

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Agreed, but the numbers are vanishingly small. Whereas if you take the Ukrainian-Greek Catholic church, which has over 4 million members and is in full communion with Rome - it has always had married clergy. So it can be done and has been done, on quite a large scale.

Do many members of the Ukrainian-Greek church "go over" to Rome? Being in full communion with Roman Catholicism isn't the same as being a Roman Catholic.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

lazybones32 wrote: »

Christ does. There are passages in Scripture where he is quite clear and the RC tries to remain faithful to it.
Catholic priests and Protestant ministers and vicars are not the same - the RC doesn't accept the validity of the vicarage as being of the same value as the priesthood.
People are free to join or leave the Church, yet Christ will never cease to 'call' people to be with him. Popular opinion is no measure of truth or a judgement of correct/incorrect, so I wouldn't look at the majority's decision as being a reflection of what is right, good or true.
I'm not privy to God's plan to fulfill human history so I can't reveal the strategy to you. There is a lot of work to do; always has been but most of us are simply called to witness and the seed will grow of its own accord.

If it's "quiet clear" and yet only one church is faithful to it, then there's a contradiction: either they are all faithful to it, or it's not clear at all, and instead is open to intrepretation.

Which specific verse(s) are you refering to?

katydid

psinno wrote: »

If the Church of England is anything to go by that will only provide temporary respite. It has only been 20 years but already the number of female priests is declining. More of a softer landing that a solution to the decline in the number of priests.

The number of priests, along with church members, is declining in every mainstream Christian church. That's not really a measure.

The fact is that there is no shortage of clergy in the CofI - and the ordained clergy is supported by a large network of lay ministers, who take services not involving the celebration of communion. It may decline overall in the course of time, but at the end of the day, the fact that they can recruit from the entire population of the church, not from a small cohort of males who are prepared to remain celibate.

lazybones32

katydid wrote: »

Protestant priests (not all are vicars, that's a rule, like a parish priest in the RC church), pastors, Greek and Russian Orthodox...they are all allowed to marry. The RCC is in a minority in this one. Priests were married in the early days of the church; the Roman church introduced celibacy to protect its property rights. Nothing at all to do with religion

Partially correct. Clerical marriage (allowing priests to marry) is allowed in Protestant churches, Anglicanism, Judaism and Islam.
The RCC, some Eastern CC, eastern and Oriental orthodox Churches allow married men to become priests but do not allow priests or Bishops to marry.


The notion of priestly celibacy being a recent introduction and solely for retention of assets is easily argued against but near impossible to prove (no-one is obliged to believe the reasons why the Church teaches what it teaches and holds)

"It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office." Council of Elvira c. 305 A.D.

The Nicaea Council - which formulated the Creed - also included "the requirement of all priests and bishops to refrain from sexual contact with their wives or with any other woman. Thus, for a married man to become a priest, his wife had to agree to abstain from all sexual relations." They claimed apostolic origin for this teaching*


*I'm sure it's been written here before, that even though all the Apostles - bar John - were married, but after Pentecost they lived as brother and sister i.e. they refrained from sexual relations. That, supposedly, was the basis for clerical celibacy.

Directa Decretal

katydid

lazybones32 wrote: »

Christ does. There are passages in Scripture where he is quite clear and the RC tries to remain faithful to it.
Catholic priests and Protestant ministers and vicars are not the same - the RC doesn't accept the validity of the vicarage as being of the same value as the priesthood.
People are free to join or leave the Church, yet Christ will never cease to 'call' people to be with him. Popular opinion is no measure of truth or a judgement of correct/incorrect, so I wouldn't look at the majority's decision as being a reflection of what is right, good or true.
I'm not privy to God's plan to fulfill human history so I can't reveal the strategy to you. There is a lot of work to do; always has been but most of us are simply called to witness and the seed will grow of its own accord.


From what I understand, decisions are made on a case-by-case basis (not every vicar can become a priest). There is a big difference between someone converting to the RC and one who wants to quit the priesthood in order to marry and then rejoin the priesthood. Holiness isn't dependent on having sexual relations.

Which "passages" from scripture? The only one I have ever been quoted is the line from Paul about women being silent in church. Given that Paul is expressing his own opinion, and never met Jesus, that's a pretty weak argument to base such a huge act of discrimination on.

You are absolutely right that holiness isn't dependent on having sexual relations. So why ban people from having sexual relations?

katydid

lazybones32 wrote: »

Partially correct. Clerical marriage (allowing priests to marry) is allowed in Protestant churches, Anglicanism, Judaism and Islam.
The RCC, some Eastern CC, eastern and Oriental orthodox Churches allow married men to become priests but do not allow priests or Bishops to marry.


The notion of priestly celibacy being a recent introduction and solely for retention of assets is easily argued against but near impossible to prove (no-one is obliged to believe the reasons why the Church teaches what it teaches and holds)

"It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office." Council of Elvira c. 305 A.D.

The Nicaea Council - which formulated the Creed - also included "the requirement of all priests and bishops to refrain from sexual contact with their wives or with any other woman. Thus, for a married man to become a priest, his wife had to agree to abstain from all sexual relations." They claimed apostolic origin for this teaching*


*I'm sure it's been written here before, that even though all the Apostles - bar John - were married, but after Pentecost they lived as brother and sister i.e. they refrained from sexual relations. That, supposedly, was the basis for clerical celibacy.

Directa Decretal

Yes, I do know that in certain churches marriage is only permitted in the lower orders of the clergy, but that still puts the RCC in the minority in its total ban. (Not sure what Judaism has to do with this issue..)

Of course it's impossible to prove the reason behind the introduction of celibacy, but maybe I'm cynical. By the time celibacy was introduced, the church had amassed considerable property and influence. It stands to reason that it would not wish to see this wealth disappear because of inheritance. The Celtic church passed its titles and properties from father to son until relatively late in its history, until Rome stepped in and put the boot in.

Of course they would use interpretations of scripture to justify this ban, but let's face it, in the case of what the apostles did after Pentecost, it must be remembered that they honestly believed that they were in the end days, and that Christ was literally going to return any day. So they lived and preached abstinence in preparation for the return and the new world they would enter. Given that Christ didn't return immediately, it wasn't a realistic proposition for the real world of Christianity

Nomis21

In the past, the priesthood appealed to mainly gay men who were not allowed to marry other gay men as even being gay in itself was illegal at one time.

Now that homosexuality is legal and accepted in society and gay people can even get married (to each other) there is less interest from gay people becoming priests.

I think that this is a major factor in the shortage of RC priests and also that the RC Church continues to find itself on the opposite side of popular opinion on most issues.

lazybones32

katydid wrote: »

Where in scripture does Christ call on men and women to "forsake certain relationships" in order to follow him?
And when you say "follow him totally", are not all Christians called on to follow him totally? He never set aside a priesthood who would follow him totally as opposed to another level of Christians who would follow him partially. In fact, he never set aside a priesthood at all.

The oft quoted "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" Matt. 19:11–12
Indeed God has set aside certain people. Revelation says that the people who refrained from sexual relations for God's sake were kept separate(?) and could sing a song which only they knew.
The Levites weren't given a portion of land because the LORD himself was their inheritance (and not forgetting their time of service where they had to leave their families, refrain from sexual relations in order to serve the LORD more focused and faithfully in their temple)
The Prophet Jeremiah?

katydid

Nomis21 wrote: »

In the past, the priesthood appealed to mainly gay men who were not allowed to marry other gay men as even being gay in itself was illegal at one time.

Now that homosexuality is legal and accepted in society and gay people can even get married (to each other) there is less interest from gay people becoming priests.

I think that this is a major factor in the shortage of RC priests and also that the RC Church continues to find itself on the opposite side of popular opinion on most issues.

Rubbish. In the past, young men were pressurised from an early age to be priests; they were sent to secondary schools that were feeders for seminaries, and never really encouraged to explore their sexuality one way or another.

Others, of course, made a free choice, because they had a vocation and accepted celibacy because there was no alternative.

It's insulting to those in the priesthood today to suggest that most of them are gay. Not because being called gay is an insult, but because you are totally misjudging their reason for following their vocation.

katydid

lazybones32 wrote: »

The oft quoted "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" Matt. 19:11–12
Indeed God has set aside certain people. Revelation says that the people who refrained from sexual relations for God's sake were kept separate(?) and could sing a song which only they knew.
The Levites weren't given a portion of land because the LORD himself was their inheritance (and not forgetting their time of service where they had to leave their families, refrain from sexual relations in order to serve the LORD more focused and faithfully in their temple)
The Prophet Jeremiah?

Some versions of the verse from Matthew was Jesus answer to a question he was asked on his opinion of Jewish teaching on divorce. He was trying to point out that he was taking neither side of the debate, but that there were different ways of looking at it, and that there was nothing wrong with celibacy in itself.

In fact, the word used instead of the phrase "incapable of marriage" is "eunuchs", which puts a whole new angle on what he said, if that's the interpretation you follow.

Which shows that it's a passage that is difficult to definitively quote in the context of such a context as priestly celibacy, especially as it wasn't referring to a priesthood which didn't even exist.

As for Revelations, it is John's mystic reflections on early Christianity, written many years after Jesus lived and taught, not the words and opinions of Jesus

I'm not sure what the Jewish priesthood has to do with Christian priesthood. it's a totally different concept - and based on marriage and inheritance of priestly roles...

CelticRambler

Roger Buck wrote: »

Living in France, I knew a priest who had 40 parishes. I am not kidding.

... and I know one who has (present tense) 41 - my parish priest. Thirty of the parishes have one Mass a year, one of them has one Mass a week (Sunday!), the rest share a Saturday vigil or early Sunday service.

But if we were suddenly blessed with forty new vocations this year, it wouldn't make any difference. On a good day (not including traditional holidays) we might have forty or fifty people at Mass, of which maybe one or two will be children/teenagers. There's little point praying for vocations if there isn't at least a reasonable pool of potential candidates.

As for marriage and celibacy, well we've had the office of deacon for a good long time, but there's been no rush to take up that role, so it's obviously not just the celibacy thing that's keeping men out of the Church.

For quite some time, I've felt that the Church could - perhaps should - target all those young people leaving school without really knowing what they want to do. Make it a "career option" - join the Church and see the world! Sure, there'd be a huge percentage of drop-outs and very few that discoverd a true vocation, but I reckon there'd also be a good number who realised that being active in the Church isn't all about Hail Marys and communion wine.

katydid

CelticRambler wrote: »

... and I know one who has (present tense) 41 - my parish priest. Thirty of the parishes have one Mass a year, one of them has one Mass a week (Sunday!), the rest share a Saturday vigil or early Sunday service.

But if we were suddenly blessed with forty new vocations this year, it wouldn't make any difference. On a good day (not including traditional holidays) we might have forty or fifty people at Mass, of which maybe one or two will be children/teenagers. There's little point praying for vocations if there isn't at least a reasonable pool of potential candidates.

As for marriage and celibacy, well we've had the office of deacon for a good long time, but there's been no rush to take up that role, so it's obviously not just the celibacy thing that's keeping men out of the Church.

For quite some time, I've felt that the Church could - perhaps should - target all those young people leaving school without really knowing what they want to do. Make it a "career option" - join the Church and see the world! Sure, there'd be a huge percentage of drop-outs and very few that discoverd a true vocation, but I reckon there'd also be a good number who realised that being active in the Church isn't all about Hail Marys and communion wine.

I'm not aware that the church encourages the role of deacons as a final destination. It is now, as far as I know, regarded as the final stage before ordination. It's certainly something they could consider.
But as long as they disregard and disrespect half of their members, the whole exercise is rather pointless.

Your last suggestion is beyond ridiculous.

Safehands

katydid wrote: »

Rubbish. In the past, young men were pressurised from an early age to be priests; they were sent to secondary schools that were feeders for seminaries, and never really encouraged to explore their sexuality one way or another.

Others, of course, made a free choice, because they had a vocation and accepted celibacy because there was no alternative.

It's insulting to those in the priesthood today to suggest that most of them are gay. Not because being called gay is an insult, but because you are totally misjudging their reason for following their vocation.

I don't think his argument is rubbish. Yes young men were pressurised, but most did not complete the course. It was an ideal haven for young gay men, living in a world where homosexuality was seen as depraved. I too believe that most, not all, but most of the remaining priests are probably gay. Katy, I struggle to think of one priest who I know, who is heterosexual. I think he has a point.

katydid

Safehands wrote: »

I don't think his argument is rubbish. Yes young men were pressurised, but most did not complete the course. It was an ideal haven for young gay men, living in a world where homosexuality was seen as depraved. I too believe that most, not all, but most of the remaining priests are probably gay. Katy, I struggle to think of one priest who I know, who is heterosexual. I think he has a point.

It may well have attracted gay men, but to suggest that MOST priests are gay and that the main reason for the decline in the priesthood is the acceptance of gays is daft

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

lazybones32 wrote: »

The oft quoted "11Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted.12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" Matt. 19:11–12

Verse 11 is sperated, because it says nothing with regard to preists marrying.
Verse 12 refers to a matter of opinion: some are forced (not what Christ says) some have renounced it for the kingdom of God (again, not what Christ says: what the indivicual chooses)

Furthermore, having googled the passage, the first three I looked at refers to "eunuchs" - and how this can be said to be "perfectly clear" is beyond me.

In short, this passage doesn't refer to Christ and doesn't refer to priests.

So we return to the original point: Christ doesn't call anyone, the church does; and Christ doesn't forbid marriage, the specific church does.

CelticRambler

katydid wrote: »

I'm not aware that the church encourages the role of deacons as a final destination. It is now, as far as I know, regarded as the final stage before ordination.

You seem to be out of touch. It's the "avenue of choice" for married men with (grown up) children who want to be more involved with their parish. When I lived in England, we had two such deacons in our parish, and there were another two in my wife's home parish. Here in France, I was approached directly by the diocesan vicar and "invited to consider" the role without having made any special effort to draw attention to myself (other than by being the only male "maman" in the catechism group :rolleyes: )

katydid wrote: »

Your last suggestion is beyond ridiculous.

Why?

katydid

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Verse 11 is sperated, because it says nothing with regard to preists marrying.
Verse 12 refers to a matter of opinion: some are forced (not what Christ says) some have renounced it for the kingdom of God (again, not what Christ says: what the indivicual chooses)

Furthermore, having googled the passage, the first three I looked at refers to "eunuchs" - and how this can be said to be "perfectly clear" is beyond me.

In short, this passage doesn't refer to Christ and doesn't refer to priests.

So we return to the original point: Christ doesn't call anyone, the church does; and Christ doesn't forbid marriage, the specific church does.

Well, it refers to Christ in that Christ is recorded as having said it...

Safehands

katydid wrote: »

It may well have attracted gay men, but to suggest that MOST priests are gay and that the main reason for the decline in the priesthood is the acceptance of gays is daft

Katy, I don't know a single blue blooded healthy man who would be willing to give up all physical contact with the opposite sex for the rest of his life, no matter what the cause. In our modern, highly sexualised world, it would be very, very unusual for a young man with all the hot flushes of youth, to join a group of celebate men and forsake all contact with the greatest, most desirable object of any young male's attention. One or two may have fleeting thoughts of a monastic existence, but a brief perusal of a modern paper, magazine or TV station would shoot those thoughts out of his mind quicker than a Scud missile.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

katydid wrote: »

Well, it refers to Christ in that Christ is recorded as having said it...

Fair enough, but the base poitn is that it's up to the individual, not the church.

katydid

CelticRambler wrote: »

You seem to be out of touch. It's the "avenue of choice" for married men with (grown up) children who want to be more involved with their parish. When I lived in England, we had two such deacons in our parish, and there were another two in my wife's home parish. Here in France, I was approached directly by the diocesan vicar and "invited to consider" the role without having made any special effort to draw attention to myself (other than by being the only male "maman" in the catechism group :rolleyes: )



Why?

Well, I'm not a RC any more, but as far as I know, it's not an option here in Ireland. I could be wrong. It would be no harm in promoting it, but not the solution to the vocation problem, as deacons can't celebrate communion.

It's ridiculous to suggest offering young people...by people you mean young MEN...the option of training for the priesthood as a way to see the world. You do realise that young men and WOMEN these days have many ways of seeing the world? The young men have the option of joining the priesthood, but they dont'

Benny_Cake

Safehands wrote: »

Katy, I don't know a single blue blooded healthy man who would be willing to give up all physical contact with the opposite sex for the rest of his life, no matter what the cause. In our modern, highly sexualised world, it would be very, very unusual for a young man with all the hot flushes of youth, to join a group of celebate men and forsake all contact with the greatest, most desirable object of any young male's attention. One or two may have fleeting thoughts of a monastic existence, but a brief perusal of a modern paper, magazine or TV station would shoot those thoughts out of his mind quicker than a Scud missile.

I don't think that represents anything new though. It's worth reading the autobiography of Thomas Merton for an example of a very well-educated, worldly, and sexually active straight man who gave it all up to join an enclosed religious order. It will always appeal to some people.

I'd agree that sex is more in your face now but don't underestimate the power of the imagination!

katydid

Safehands wrote: »

Katy, I don't know a single blue blooded healthy man who would be willing to give up all physical contact with the opposite sex for the rest of his life, no matter what the cause. In our modern, highly sexualised world, it would be very, very unusual for a young man with all the hot flushes of youth, to join a group of celebate men and forsake all contact with the greatest, most desirable object of any young male's attention. One or two may have fleeting thoughts of a monastic existence, but a brief perusal of a modern paper, magazine or TV station would shoot those thoughts out of his mind quicker than a Scud missile.

Just because YOU don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't know many RC priests, but of those I have come across, I'd say two or three of them were clearly gay - as for the others, I neither know nor care. I don't really speculate about the sexuality of those I encounter in the course of my life.

You shouldn't judge others by your clearly uncontrollable libido.

Safehands

katydid wrote: »

Just because YOU don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't know many RC priests, but of those I have come across, I'd say two or three of them were clearly gay - as for the others, I neither know nor care. I don't really speculate about the sexuality of those I encounter in the course of my life.

You shouldn't judge others by your clearly uncontrollable libido.

I'm just being realistic. Nothing to do with libido!

katydid

Safehands wrote: »

I'm just being realistic. Nothing to do with libido!

No, you are assuming everyone is like you. They aren't.

Safehands

katydid wrote: »

Just because YOU don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't know many RC priests, but of those I have come across, I'd say two or three of them were clearly gay - as for the others, I neither know nor care. I don't really speculate about the sexuality of those I encounter in the course of my life.

You shouldn't judge others by your clearly uncontrollable libido.

I'm just being realistic, nothing to do with libido. I'm surprised at you Katy!

Safehands

katydid wrote: »

No, you are assuming everyone is like you. They aren't.

Hmmm. Most men I know share my views on this topic. No, that's untrue Katy, ALL the men I know share my views on this one!

katydid

Safehands wrote: »

Hmmm. Most men I know share my views on this topic. No, that's untrue Katy, ALL the men I know share my views on this one!

That says more about you and the men you know than about anything else.

Now, can we get back on topic?