Married Roman Catholic Priests - think it'll happen soon?

[kenobi_65]

@LSLGuy

My take is the RCC will have married priests pretty soon. By the timescales that the RCC follows.

Yes, that’s my thought, as well.

Vatican II made significant changes to the RCC, and that was a lifetime ago for most Catholics (that council concluded in 1965). And, yet, in the timeframes in which the RCC typically operates, Vatican II is still very recent.

[Nava]

@Biffster

That may be, but there are certainly priests and priestesses in many religions beyond Catholicism.

And in many of those religions there exists a distinction between pastor and priest.

Go to a Jew and tell them a rabbi is a priest, c’mon, go ahead…

[Biffster]

@Nava

And in many of those religions there exists a distinction between pastor and priest.

Go to a Jew and tell them a rabbi is a priest, c’mon, go ahead…

So who were the chief priests mentioned in the Bible? Christianity didn’t exist yet.

[LSLGuy]

Neither did the English word “priest”. Trying to appeal to ancient original authority by using modern English bible translations to quibble over modern English usage is silly.

[Nava]

@Biffster

So who were the chief priests mentioned in the Bible? Christianity didn’t exist yet.

The actual priests. Very different from rabbis. And you’re the one who seems to think the distinction between “priest” and “other types of religious jobs” was invented by the RCC. That was never my claim.
One of Luther’s biggest points was the rejection of the priesthood, of the sacerdotal tasks of performing representative sacrifices (in the case of Christianity, the Eucharist; in the case of Jewish priests, of actual animals in front of the Ark). Confusing a Lutheran pastor with a priest of any religion is missing the point by several hundred miles.

[Biffster]

@Nava

The actual priests. Very different from rabbis. And you’re the one who seems to think the distinction between “priest” and “other types of religious jobs” was invented by the RCC. That was never my claim.

One of Luther’s biggest points was the rejection of the priesthood, of the sacerdotal tasks of performing representative sacrifices (in the case of Christianity, the Eucharist; in the case of Jewish priests, of actual animals in front of the Ark). Confusing a Lutheran pastor with a priest of any religion is missing the point by several hundred miles.

Okay, point taken. Learned a new word too: sacerdotal.

[Crybaby_Boobie]

I have a legit, need the straight dope answer to this question (as a semi-practicing Catholic):

Other than the fact that it already happens, why is it more palatable for married men to be priests than celibate, single women? What’s the scriptural or dogmatic reason for it?

[Doctor_Jackson]

I’m not Catholic, but here are a couple of scriptures that seem relevant:
1 Timothy 2:11-14

11A womana must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man;b she is to remain quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.

and 1 Corinthians 14:33-35

33For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church.

[Nava]

@Crybaby_Boobie

I have a legit, need the straight dope answer to this question (as a semi-practicing Catholic):

Other than the fact that it already happens, why is it more palatable for married men to be priests than celibate, single women? What’s the scriptural or dogmatic reason for it?

Doctor Jackson’s cites got nothing to do with it.

The reason given boils down to “every priest He chose was male, therefore we only ordain males.”

[ISiddiqui]

@Nava

One of Luther’s biggest points was the rejection of the priesthood

Not quite. An expansion of the priesthood to the priesthood of all believers. As Luther says:

@To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation

That the pope or bishop anoints, makes tonsures, ordains, consecrates, or dresses differently from the laity, may make a hypocrite or an idolatrous oil-painted icon, but it in no way makes a Christian or spiritual human being. In fact, we are all consecrated priests through Baptism, as St. Peter in 1 Peter 2[:9] says, “You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom,” and Revelation [5:10], "Through your blood you have made us into priests and kings.

@On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church

How then if they are forced to admit that we are all equally priests, as many of us as are baptized, and by this way we truly are; while to them is committed only the Ministry (ministerium) and consented to by us (nostro consensu)? If they recognize this they would know that they have no right to exercise power over us (ius imperii, in what has not been committed to them) except insofar as we may have granted it to them, for thus it says in 1 Peter 2, “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a priestly kingdom.” In this way we are all priests, as many of us as are Christians. There are indeed priests whom we call ministers. They are chosen from among us, and who do everything in our name. That is a priesthood which is nothing else than the Ministry. Thus 1 Corinthians 4:1: “No one should regard us as anything else than ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God.”

So in essence it is wrong to exclusively call a Lutheran Pastor as “priest” because all Christians are priests. Referring to he or she as a priest doesn’t adequately distinguish their vocation.

[DrDeth]

@BigT

Two popes have already said that this isn’t absolute. And there are already small exceptions being allowed. It seems that the Church is starting the process of allowing it. Now, how long that will take, or whether it will be halted before completed, I don’t know. But it does definitely seem more likely than it did less than a year ago.

Next step is if you are married before, then Ok.

Women priests: I think a limited form of ordination perhaps for Mother Superiors and such for nuns.

[DrDeth]

@Nava

The actual priests. Very different from rabbis. And you’re the one who seems to think the distinction between “priest” and “other types of religious jobs” was invented by the RCC. That was never my claim.
One of Luther’s biggest points was the rejection of the priesthood, of the sacerdotal tasks of performing representative sacrifices (in the case of Christianity, the Eucharist; in the case of Jewish priests, of actual animals in front of the Ark). Confusing a Lutheran pastor with a priest of any religion is missing the point by several hundred miles.

Yes, but after the destruction of the Temple in AD70 there have been no Preists, altho Cohens, etc do have some minor cerimonial usuages.
However Rabbis officiate at Wedding, Bar Mitsvas, funerals, and so forth, fulfilling todays common duties one expects of priests.

Few expect preists to do animal sacrifies anymore.

[Doctor_Jackson]

@Nava

Doctor Jackson’s cites got nothing to do with it.

The reason given boils down to “every priest He chose was male, therefore we only ordain males.”

Again, I’m not Catholic but for most other denominations that don’t allow women priests/pastors/preachers these are the reasons cited. According to some interpretations of those scriptures, women should never be leaders in the church. Other interpretations see them as a specific instruction for a specific time/place. YMMV.

[astorian]

If and when a sizable percentage of the Cardinals is African, I think the rule will change.

[LSLGuy]

I don’t disagree, but it would be interesting to see just how they’d remake the RCC. Far more reactionary in social stuff, but married priests are OK. Maybe even polygamous ones in certain societies where that’s already a norm.

'Merkin Catholic heads would asplode. Not that ‘Merkins’ opinions or membership numbers matter much to the current or future RCC.

[Shodan]

@Crybaby_Boobie

I have a legit, need the straight dope answer to this question (as a semi-practicing Catholic):

Other than the fact that it already happens, why is it more palatable for married men to be priests than celibate, single women? What’s the scriptural or dogmatic reason for it?

It’s not a dogma; that is, it has not been defined as something to which all Roman Catholics must assent. There is no Scripture that says “priests must be single”, although St. Paul talked a bit about celibacy and how it was better to remain single. He was talking about women.

Another reason for the imposition of priestly celibacy was that the children of married priests wanted to inherit their father’s position, and the local bishop wanted to assign the gig to whoever he wanted. So they decided that priests could not marry to prevent the issue.

Regards,
Shodan

[DrDeth]

@Shodan

It’s not a dogma; that is, it has not been defined as something to which all Roman Catholics must assent. There is no Scripture that says “priests must be single”, although St. Paul talked a bit about celibacy and how it was better to remain single. He was talking about women.

He was not talking about women, as opposed to men. :

1 Corinthians 7New International Version (NIV)

Concerning Married Life
7 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

[Saintly_Loser]

@DrDeth

Next step is if you are married before, then Ok.

Women priests: I think a limited form of ordination perhaps for Mother Superiors and such for nuns.

There really isn’t any limited form of the priesthood in the Catholic Church. One is either a priest or not.

There is the diaconate, and Pope Francis did announce some time last year that he was going to appoint a commission to study ordaining women to the diaconate, which is a pretty big step for the RCC. I don’t know what, if anything, has happened with that commission.

I can’t think of any reason why, if ordination as a deacon was open to women, it would be restricted to nuns.

[Nava]

@Doctor_Jackson

Again, I’m not Catholic but for most other denominations that don’t allow women priests/pastors/preachers these are the reasons cited. According to some interpretations of those scriptures, women should never be leaders in the church. Other interpretations see them as a specific instruction for a specific time/place. YMMV.

OK, and I am Catholic and I tell you if those verses were used it would cause a general strike of
lectors
cantors
catechists
Religion teachers
and others who are female and teaching in an RCC context.

We were speaking about the Catholic context.

[Shodan]

@DrDeth

He was not talking about women, as opposed to men. :

1 Corinthians 7New International Version (NIV)

Concerning Married Life
7 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

You are correct, of course, and I misremembered.

Regards,
Shodan