|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 23, 2009 9:49:40 GMT
Harris's suggestion that Guillaume's claim that we might now have fewer but higher-quality candidates for the priesthood was somehow equivalent to seeking a "master race" was untrue (given that we are talking about celibates) and grossly offensive in its implicit reference to Nazism. A better parallel, since Guillaume tends to emphasise Ignatian models which are based on military training, would be with the sort of rigorous "selection" procedures that are followed for elite regiments like the British SAS or the American Marine Corps. These have a high drop-out rate and make crushing demands on the personality, in part because the nature of the job requires it - military training is meant to overcome the natural human instinct to run away when someone shoots you and to build a sense of cohesion which will train the soldier to identify with his comrades and risk himself for their sake. In the same way St. Alphonsus Liguori trained his Redmptorists to have a strong sense of obedience and collective identity precisely because he wanted them to preach the Gospel to the rural poor under conditions where they would suffer considerable privation, rather than looking for a softer life in Naples as some nobleman's chaplain, as too many of the secular clergy tended to do. By its nature a body of this sort will have a high drop-out rate and will attract only a certain type of recruit, but to lower its demands would over time both lower the prestige of the unit (which rests precisely on its difficulty) and render it less able to do its job (because the demands haven't changed). Of course the Ignatian or military model is not the only possible vision of priesthood, and it has certain problems (e.g. tight cohesion often comes with a certain contempt for those outside the charmed circle - the Pelagian view that you can save yourself by your own efforts and if you fall back it's exclusively your own fault- and the ways in which a culture of total obedience to the superior can be abused) but I do think the sense of the priesthood as a challenge which God is offering to you, which is so valuable it is worth sacrificing your whole life for, and which should be seriously and urgently considered is an element which did contribute to the higher vocations rate pre-Vatican II and whose loss (for the "go away and consider it when you are a bit older/have gone to university/had a few girlfriends" approach has swung the pendulum too far in the other direction.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 23, 2009 12:34:30 GMT
This link may be relevant to my exchange with Alasdair above. Basically, Sheen describes reconciling to the Church an actress who was involved with three men at the time of her conversion, and who entered a religious order three months later. According to Fr. Zuhlsdorf, whose blog gives the story, the woman persevered in her vocation and died quite recently. wdtprs.com/blog/2009/07/fulton-sheen-confession-story/
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Jul 23, 2009 16:05:35 GMT
Harris's suggestion that Guillaume's claim that we might now have fewer but higher-quality candidates for the priesthood was somehow equivalent to seeking a "master race" was untrue (given that we are talking about celibates) and grossly offensive in its implicit reference to Nazism. That why I put a smiley face after it you bloody idiot. It was humour!!!! Stop looking to start a row!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Jul 24, 2009 10:34:44 GMT
Whoa hibernicus!!!!!! Talk about a cheap shot! What are you playing at? Its clear to see the sentiment in which Harris's comment was expressed. Are you trying to stir things up a bit on the forum in order to increase the message load or something? Also, just to point out to you that it was michael who made the point about fewer catholics being probably better by the way, not guillaume.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 24, 2009 11:38:12 GMT
Apologies for missing the humour; I don't use smilies myself so I tend to overlook them. I confess I am sensitive about being compared to the Nazis, and I think such humour is misplaced.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Jul 25, 2009 13:34:14 GMT
Apologies for missing the humour; I don't use smilies myself so I tend to overlook them. I confess I am sensitive about being compared to the Nazis, and I think such humour is misplaced. I didnt see the word Nazi even mentioned by anyone except yourself. Master Race doesnt necessarily have to mean Nazi. It could just as easily mean a race that considers itself superior to all others. It doesnt have to mean extermination of other races.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Jul 25, 2009 13:43:54 GMT
Apologies for missing the humour; I don't use smilies myself so I tend to overlook them. I confess I am sensitive about being compared to the Nazis, and I think such humour is misplaced. I didnt see the word Nazi even mentioned by anyone except yourself. Master Race doesnt necessarily have to mean Nazi. It could just as easily mean a race that considers itself superior to all others. It doesnt have to mean extermination of other races. SS doesn't mean nazi ? Hitler ? Hello, speaking about bad faith you guys are champion. ALSO, should I remind you you are in the part of "for catholics" only. But since there is no moderation, so far, you and your friends are taking the pleasure to insult a member ("bloody idiot"), to insult the Church and a previous Pope, making the link between Hilterism and Pope XII. Once again, this is untruth and closed to blasphemy. You guys are so poor in arguments that you need lies and insults to comment. NO proper forum accept this.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Jul 25, 2009 17:50:58 GMT
I didnt see the word Nazi even mentioned by anyone except yourself. Master Race doesnt necessarily have to mean Nazi. It could just as easily mean a race that considers itself superior to all others. It doesnt have to mean extermination of other races. SS doesn't mean nazi ? Hitler ? Hello, speaking about bad faith you guys are champion. ALSO, should I remind you you are in the part of "for catholics" only. But since there is no moderation, so far, you and your friends are taking the pleasure to insult a member ("bloody idiot"), to insult the Church and a previous Pope, making the link between Hilterism and Pope XII. Once again, this is untruth and closed to blasphemy. You guys are so poor in arguments that you need lies and insults to comment. NO proper forum accept this. If you had bothered to take the care to read the above properly, you would see that neither I nor Harris (who hibericus was addressing) mentioned Nazis or the SS. Therefore your post above is irrelevant and quite frankly another example of your knee jerk reactions to a conversation you didn’t even bother to read properly. How embarrassing for you william!! You must feel a bit silly now eh?
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Jul 25, 2009 18:00:01 GMT
Also william, Harris called hib a bloody idiot when he was accused of something he didn’t do. Not me.
Harris is a catholic. Dear, you really are misinformed on this topic. I suggest you read the whole thing again before you reply to see what actually happened my friend.
Now I ask you, do you feel like a bit of an idiot now?
And for the record, hitler was a roman catholic, not an atheist. PLEASE don’t make me post examples of his speeches here where he invokes god to embarrass you even more.....
And even if he was an atheist (which he wasnt), he didnt do the things he done in the name of atheism. He done them because of his lust for power and hatred of Jews and Slavs and many other political reasons that right minded people deplore.
When you post stuff like this you come across as very misinformed william. Very misinformed indeed.
It appears you are very misguided on what atheists are actually like as people. We are good people who love our families and friend and life. We just chose not to believe in any gods due to a severe lack of good proof and evidence in their existence.
That’s all.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 27, 2009 12:15:25 GMT
I regret to say that Hemingway is deceiving himself. The term "master race" is specifically associated with the Nazis (translating the term "Herrenvolk"), as can be seen from the Wikipedia entry below. Try Googling "master race" (don't forget the inverted commas) an you will see that the vast majority of entries you find specifically relate to the Nazis. Claiming that the use of the term "master race" was a joke (albeit in extremely poor taste) is one thing. Claiming that it doesn't carry connotations of Nazism is something alse altogether. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_raceThe master race (German: die Herrenrasse, das Herrenvolk (help·info)) was a concept in Nazi ideology, which holds that the Teutonics (including the Nordic peoples), one of the branches of what in the late 19th and early 20th century was called the Aryan race, represent an ideal and "pure race". It derives from 19th century racial theory, which posited a hierarchy of races placing Aboriginal Australians and so-called "African savages" at the bottom of the hierarchy[citation needed] while Northern Europeans (namely the Germanic peoples) at the top.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 27, 2009 12:30:54 GMT
Ezigboutu seems to have forgotten that we had a thread on Pius XII, which is now in the Atheists' Forum section. If he wishes to debate the question of whether Hitler was a Catholic [I do not dispute that he was born a Catholic or that until his death he was registered as a member of the Catholic Church under the German system of church taxation) I suggest that he restarts this thread rather than going over the whole ground again unnecessarily. Meanwhile, these links provide an useful starting-point for the debate. Wikipedia has its flaws, and I would say the Pius XII entry in its curent state is tilted a bit towards the defenders' viewpoint, but they do indicate that matters are a bit more complex than ezigbotutu makes out - assuming of course that he nows something about historical method (of which he shows no evidence so far) and is interested in finding out the truth rather than just name-calling. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefsen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pius_XII
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 27, 2009 12:34:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 29, 2009 12:25:48 GMT
Might I return to the original topic?
Harris raised the reasonable point if ending priestly celibacy would increase vocations to the priesthood. I don't personally believe it would, but first of all let me elaborate on the conditions under which marriage clergy might be permitted (and why).
The issue of clerical celibacy is not something that the Church will look at in relation to itself alone. The relationship with other churches will come in. There is a consensus between the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches and the Old Catholic Churches on what the priesthood is (this is complicated because some Old Catholic Churches ordain women which neither Catholic, Orthodox nor other Old Catholics accept). Within the Protestant persuasions, the Anglican and Lutheran Churches accept the three-fold ministry of bishop, priest and deacon, with major differences with the Catholic-Orthodox consensus, but there is at least some convergence with this consensus. Other Protestant churches have a totally different view of priestly ministry, so they are not at the same race track on this issue.
On the point of religious life: as a monk (whether priest or lay brother) or a nun (who may be a priest in Old Catholic/Anglican/Lutheran religious communities, whatever the others think) - consensus exists. All religious are celibates. It is true that some of the more remote Old Catholic groups has monks and nuns who are married or in relationships, but these wouldn't be living what others would recognise as religious life, so this only serves to confirm the mainline consensus.
With regard to diocesan priesthood, that is a different matter - and there are married priests serving in the Catholic Church, which I will come to later. I will deal with the norms in the other churches first, as all have a bearing on the circumstances in which married men are ordained in the Catholic Church.
Theoretically, the Old Catholic Churches are closer to the Catholic Church than even the Orthodox Churches, but this is not how things have worked in the last century. Anyway, Old Catholic groups tend to be small, so the focus is on the Orthodox Churches.
Orthodox Churches (and I include all oriental churches here including Copts, Armenians, Syrians and Assyrians whom Constantinople and Moscow don't recognise) have this basic consensus. First there is the distinction between the 'White' or monastic clergy and the 'Black' or married clergy. The 'black' clergy are analogous to Catholic diocesan clergy. If they marry it is under the following conditions:
1. They must be married before ordination to the sub-diaconate - normally not an end in itself in the east and proceed to diaconate and priesthood afterwards (the diaconate is much more important in the east than in the west, so many deacons remain as deacons, so there is an historic 'permanant diaconate in the Orthodox world);
2. The marriage must be a first marriage for both husband and wife and an oath is taken to that effect (here a dispute arises between Catholicism and Orthodoxy - Orthodox have trouble with the concept of annulments of marriages, where Catholics see no marriage in these cases);
3. On the death of the wife, the deacon or priest may not remarry(impediment of orders in Eastern canon law - an instant where an attempted marriage of a cleric is null and void ab initio in the East, but no process arises) and on the death of the husband and it is forbidden by positive law for a cleric's widow to marry (but this is not an equivalent impediment; as an Anglican might say 'it simply isn't done'). There is a saying in the Orthodox world 'as precious as a priest's wife' - because the priest may only have one wife; and
4. Bishops may not be married and Orthodox bishops are almost exclusively monks (White clergy); however, an unmarried priest from the 'Black' clergy may become a bishop and it has been known for widowers to become bishops, but it is very rare. One never hears of a widower becoming Patriarch of Constantinople or Moscow.
The Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome follow the same type of legislation. In the event a clerical student wishes to marry (Catholic or Orthodox), his girlfriend is usually interviewed by the seminary rector. The first question is invariably: 'Do you have priests in your family?' Effectively, priests' wives are daughters, sisters or nieces of priests and deacons - so there is a clerical caste in the east. Similar patterns are seen in the Protestant churches and among rabbis. Many, if not most, eastern vocations come from clerical families.
The Old Catholic Churches follow a very similar pattern to Protestant churches, allowing priests to marry at any stage or to re-marry after widowhood. The issue of controversy here is whether or not re-marriage after divorce is permissable. The biggest Old Catholic Church, the Polish Catholic Church in America (which is the closest church to the Catholic Church) has the rule of requiring their newly ordained priests to remain celibate for two years after ordination and then permitting them to marriage. While this may seem a sensible requirement, one can see the Catholic Church is not in a position to accept this as it runs totally contrary to the norms of the Orthodox Churches. The Polish National Catholic Church is at odds with other Old Catholic Churches as it opposes the ordination of women priests. But all Old Catholic Churches have something in common - a considerable number of their clergy are priests who left the Catholic Church to marry and took new employment in the Old Catholic Churches. Many Old Catholic groups recognise remarriages after divorce and same-sex marriage which is problematic for Polish National Catholic groups.
The Catholic Church does not accept the validity of Anglican and Lutheran orders, but both Lutherans and Anglicans of the high church party have received orders from Old Catholic bishops, so are therefore in valid orders. These are permitted to marry without restriction. The big problem is though these Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical-Catholics accept the Catholic-Orthodox consensus on the priesthood and sacraments, they belong to churches which as a whole do not. The Protestant dispensation to marry is based on a very different perception of the sacraments - in other words, the job spec of a Protestant minister and of a Catholic or Orthodox priest are radically different on several important points and the permissions or restrictions on marriage follow from these.
When the permanent diaconate was re-introduced into the western Catholic church, it followed the legislation the Orthodox apply to clergy - though it allowed the ordination of celibate permanent deacons from 24, but only allowed the ordination of married men from 35. I repeat, the eastern deacon has a much bigger role than the western deacon, but it is clear where the Catholic Church takes its queue from. The prospective married deacon must be on his first marriage prior to ordination and may not marry should he be widowed. A deacon's widow, though, is permitted to re-marry. This should serve as a hint. My own question is, could a widowed permanent deacon be dispensated to be ordained to the priesthood? I don't know, but presume so. Anyway, I should stress there is no such thing as a lay deacon - any deacon, married or celibate, is a clergyman.
Eastern Catholic priests and deacons serve under more or less the same conditions as their Orthodox counterparts. Married Orthodox priests who become Catholic are generally allowed to minister as priests without qualification, bar the usual question of faculties. Married Old Catholic priests (assuming 1. they were always Old Catholic and 2. their education for the ministry was judged to be adequate) becoming Catholic are in more or less the same boat. Married Anglican and Lutheran clergymen are treated differently. First of all, if they are found to be in valid orders unequivocally, they are admitted to serve as priests under the above terms. Second, if there is a doubt over this validity, they are conditionally re-ordained. Third, if it seems unlikely they have valid orders but they wish to continue in the ministry, they are usually re-ordained anyway. The difficult case was Monsignor Graham Leonard who had been Church of England's Bishop of London. His orders were in the second case, dubious but likely to be valid. Yet the Orthodox Church would not tolerate a married bishop. The decision was to ordain him priest, but by dispensation by the late John Paul II he was given the title monsignor in the grade of apostolic pronotorary, which entitles him to all the insignia of the episcopate and permanent delegation to administer confirmation. The only thing he may not do that a bishop generally does is to confer Holy Orders.
This information is to illustrate the limits to what the Catholic Church is prepared to do in relation to clerical celibacy.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 30, 2009 9:43:53 GMT
On Orthodox black and white clergy - most of us are familiar with two types of Orthodox clerical hat: one is plain and round, slightly wider on top; the other has a veil that falls down the back of the priest or bishop's head. Only a celibate priest is entitled to wear the veil on his hat.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 31, 2009 15:01:34 GMT
I might point out that there are some Catholic commentators who claim celibacy is of apostolic origin and the Orthodox practice a departure therefrom (there are of course clear scriptural references to it, and it was a widespread practice in the Eastern Church from very early on - the claim sometimes put forward that it was invented to preserve the Church's property in the middle ages is a gross exaggeration). I tend to be sceptical of this view, because the view that clerical celibacy is a disciplinary rather than doctrinal matter has been dominant for so long it would be a bit odd to overturn it now, and because it implies that the Orthodox and Eastern Rites should abandon their current discipline, whcih is not going to happen. (The second is of course linked to the first - only certainty that it was apostolic and doctrinal could justify overturning such a weight of precedent and adopting a policy with such far-reaching implications.) Does anyone else have any thoguht on this debate about whether celibacy goes back to the Apostles?
|
|