Story here.
My, what a schocker of a Pope is this one! What’s next, ordaining women?!
If this is true, it will be the best thing to happen to the Church in centuries.
But this is smaller deal than ordination of women - because there are non Latin rite catholic priests that can marry, and they accept married Episcopalian priests who want to convert.
Brian
And celibacy goes back to the 12th century or so, not the beginning. I wonder if this very hypothetical situation would be like before, where bishops and higher were still forbidden to marry.
jeez this bloke is having fun! He even said atheists can get into heaven.
It goes back farther than that — the practice is first mentioned in the fourth-century councils of Elvira* and Carthage — but the point stands. There is no scriptural basis for it, which is largely why the Reformers dropped it like a hot potato.
Tradition, which forms much of the basis of RC belief, holds that since Christ was (reputedly) celibate, His ministers must also be celibate. I further recall being taught back in the Fifties that the Apostles were also celibate, but that seems unlikely given the time and place. On the other hand, I find it plausible that some of the Church’s more misogynistic practices stem from Paul’s marriage being an unhappy one; but as I said, that’s just me.
*Insert “Giddy up, oom poppa, omm poppa, mow mow” reference here.
There are certain sects within Catholicism that accept married priests. I know someone who is Greek Catholic and they joined the Roman church centuries ago with the proviso that their priests were allowed to marry. I don’t think they could be Bishops, however. As mentioned above, there were ordained married Anglican priests who converted and remained as married priests.
I suspect that this tradition grew up–at least in part–for the very secular reason of avoiding nepotism. That could explain the continuing prohibition of married Bishops.
St. Peter himself had a mother-in-law, therefore must have been married. (Although he might have been a widower by the time he joined up with Jesus; his actual wife is never mentioned.)
How do other religions handle the financial aspects of priests having wife and home and raising children?
The reason I ask is that my parish has no less than 3 full time priests at any time. If they were spending time with family I’d imagine we’d need like 5 to have the same level of service. I have a feeling this would mean consolidating a lot of smaller parishes.
Don’t get me wrong - I think it’s a great idea and have zero objection. I’m just thinking there’s a lot of logistics the RCC would probably have to look to other churches to for guidance.
Celibacy is now a discipline of the church, not unalterable dogma.
Of course, yesterday celibacy was a discipline of the church, not unalterable dogma.
And in 1600, celibacy was a discipline of the church, not unalterable dogma.
Etc, etc.
This is another of the many examples of the media reporting on something they don’t understand. In fact, even today celibacy is not an absolute requirement for the priesthood: there are married Catholic priests.
To say something “can be discussed” is to distinguish it from matters that are unalterable dogma and for which change cannot be discussed to any meaningful end, because it’s not possible.
This is what Archbishop Parolin meant, and he makes it more clear in the interview itself. Unfortunately this is in Spanish. But he says (my translation):
Q: Are there not two classes of dogmas? Is there unmovable dogmas that were instituted by Jesus and then are those that arrived afterwards, during the path of the church’s history, created by men and therefore allowable to change?
A: Definitely. There are dogmas that are defined and untouchable.
Q: Celibacy is not…
A: It is not a church dogma and it can be discussed because it is a church tradition.
What he says is theologically correct and unremarkable. The same thing was true last week, last month, last year, and last century.
Dear new Pope:
**** you.
Signed,
Everyone who’s been a priest for 60 years and was celibate the whole time and is now too old to take advantage of this and now gets to watch new priests walk around with their wives.
Parishes in more rural areas are already extremely consolidated. My hometown has 23,000 people and three catholic parishes. One priest manages one church that handles the religious needs of the entire hispanic RCC community which is not inconsiderable, while the other two parishes are run by one priest who also manages 2 other farm town parishes. My grandparents a few counties over share their one parish priest with 3 other parishes as well. I don’t think there’s a whole lot more consolidating that could be done, unless the diocese throws its hands up and says they just won’t staff all the existent parishes.
And the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches have had married priests forever. Seems that the differences between the Catholic church and the Orthodox are mostly over polity and whether or not the Bishop of Rome has de jure authority over the entire world church or only a position of honor and respect.
One thing that is shared, iirc, is that marriage must come before ordination, even in the Orthodox church.
Only those willing to have sex with male priests. It’s a trial program called HOLY FUCK!
Nepotism and major consolidation of wealth in families instead of in the church. The church made a ton of money from those younger sons and daughters being sent into orders and bringing along property that went into the church’s coffers because the sons and daughters joining the orders wouldn’t have any children to inherit from them.
Also, many higher ups made serious bank while bishopping and archbishopping, money that they would leave to descendants and consolidate huge power structures that would rival the nobility. Without legal children, those powerful men lost everything at death and it cycled back to the church.
Well, that was then, this is now. Nobody goes into the Church for the money any more. (I should hope.)
I was replying to a specific post about the reasons for this tradition, originally.
I must’ve missed the memo where guys were forced into the job and didn’t realize at the time that it required some sacrifices.
Many presume that it will be easier to get more priests if they were allowed to marry. Only one way to find out.
It’s not the only thing you missed.