Plotting Nicea III Could Be Pope Francis's Masterstroke

[Spartacus]

Citing the Daily Beast is honestly, as close to blasphemy as you can get, without it actually being blasphemy.

Still, I wonder if he will do anything about the various complaints of Vatican 2's "Dignatious Humanus" contradicting earlier Church teaching (As even he admits, it does)? That's pretty much the only major problem I have with that council.

I studied various aspects of Dignitatis Humanae in at least 4 courses from my time at college (classes on Catholicism and Politics, The Second Vatican Council, Politics and Conscience, and a class on 1st Amendment jurisprudence). If you think Dignitiatis Humanae is problematic from a Catholic perspective, you're wrong... but that's not the topic of this thread, now is it?

[TimelessTheist]

I brought it up because it's relevant with regards to what Francis might do there. Maybe he wants to do something good like ending priest celibacy or banning gays from the priesthood, but I'm fairly skeptical.

Why would ending priest celibacy be good?

[Spartacus]

Why would ending priest celibacy be good?

It brings us closer to the East, for one thing. It has pros and cons. If nothing else, a married priest's ministry is probably going to look a lot different than your typical celibate priest's work.

[TimelessTheist]

It brings us closer to the East, for one thing. It has pros and cons. If nothing else, a married priest's ministry is probably going to look a lot different than your typical celibate priest's work.

I don't think changing Church tradition to appease schisimers is ever justified. No matter how nice Pope Francis is to them, the fact is that he, and the Church, still knows that they are in the wrong. The same would be said by the Orthodox Churches, Jews, Muslims, ect.

Pope Leo X was nice to the Jews, however he never changed tradition or doctrine to appease them.

[Spartacus]

I don't think changing Church tradition to appease schisimers is ever justified. No matter how nice Pope Francis is to them, the fact is that he, and the Church, still knows that they are in the wrong. The same would be said by the Orthodox Churches, Jews, Muslims, ect.

schismatics.

It's not a part of the big-t tradition. It's a discipline, not a doctrine. There are married priests in the West (though they're rare), and there could be more. Ordaining married men wouldn't be an appeasement, though-- it would mark a fundamental shift in the way we see the priesthood on a practical (but not theological) level.

[TimelessTheist]

schismatics.

It's not a part of the big-t tradition. It's a discipline, not a doctrine. There are married priests in the West (though they're rare), and there could be more. Ordaining married men wouldn't be an appeasement, though-- it would mark a fundamental shift in the way we see the priesthood on a practical (but not theological) level.

I know it's not a dogma, however, it is a tradition. It's meant to show discipline, and meant as a self-sacrifice to God. It is also meant as an eschatology sign of the eternal celibacy of the saints in heaven: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30).

They're not forcing anyone to take the vow, those who do so, do so voluntarily.

Ordaining married men wouldn't be an appeasement, though

Then why did you say "It would bring us closer to the East"? That seemed to imply such.

[Spartacus]

I know it's not a dogma, however, it is a tradition. It's meant to show discipline, and meant as a self-sacrifice to God. It is also meant as an eschatology sign of the eternal celibacy of the saints in heaven: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30).

They're not forcing anyone to take the vow, those who do so, do so voluntarily.

Ending the discipline of mandatory celibacy for secular priests certainly doesn't mean that this witness will be lost, and it doesn't mean that your parish priest will suddenly become an eligible bachelor. More likely, it means that married men who are already deeply engaged in parish life will have the opportunity to receive special pastoral training and priestly ordination, instead of just the permanent diaconate, which is open to such men in at least a few dioceses.

Then why did you say "It would bring us closer to the East"? That seemed to imply such.[/QUOTE]

I was analyzing reasons for discussing priestly celibacy in the context of east-west ecumenical dialogue. That's not to say that that is the only reason to end the discipline of mandatory celibacy, but it's one good thing that may come from it.

[Darth Executor]

Why would ending priest celibacy be good?

Because it puts off normal men (this can be good but usually isn't) and attracts degenerates.

[Spartacus]

Because it puts off normal men (this can be good but usually isn't) and attracts degenerates.

So you're saying that you find the idea of the priesthood attractive, then?

[Darth Executor]

So you're saying that you find the idea of the priesthood attractive, then?

No, I'd have to sing.

[TimelessTheist]

Because it puts off normal men (this can be good but usually isn't) and attracts degenerates.

How the hell does it "attract degenerates"?

[Spartacus]

No, I'd have to sing.

Not in Ireland.

[robrecht]

How the hell does it "attract degenerates"?

I think he means homosexuals, and therefore a higher liklihood of ephebophiles,* those who prey on postpubescent but underage members of their own sex. This differs from pedophiles who are attracted to prepubescent children. The latter may not be any more common among celibte priests, but many suspect that priestly celibacy lived in isolation might engender some homosexual priests to engage in the former. I don't know if that's true but it makes some sense. In general, I would say that there does seem to be a higher incidence for personal and sexual immaturity among those attracted to a celibate priesthood. We try to weed them out but, especially with the crisis in vocations, some dioceases seem to be much less discriminating. I worry more about those who have no apparent sexuality than those who might be gay but mature and ethical. The option for marriage among diocesan priests is not a cure-all, but it is surely a move in the right direction in my opinion.

*I wish I did not know of such distasteful information, but, unfortunately, I learned about this from my experience living among celibate priests.

[Darth Executor]

How the hell does it "attract degenerates"?

You can get a high status job without having to fake normalcy with a sham wife.

[TimelessTheist]

I think he means homosexuals, and therefore a higher liklihood of ephebophiles,* those who prey on postpubescent but underage members of their own sex. This differs from pedophiles who are attracted to prepubescent children. The latter may not be any more common among celibte priests, but many suspect that priestly celibacy lived in isolation might engender some homosexual priests to engage in the former. I don't know if that's true but it makes some sense. In general, I would say that there does seem to be a higher incidence for personal and sexual immaturity among those attracted to a celibate priesthood. We try to weed them out but, especially with the crisis in vocations, some dioceases seem to be much less discriminating. I worry more about those who have no apparent sexuality than those who might be gay but mature and ethical. The option for marriage among diocesan priests is not a cure-all, but it is surely a move in the right direction in my opinion.

*I wish I did not know of such distasteful information, but, unfortunately, I learned about this from my experience living among celibate priests.

1) Well, yes, the post-pubescent pedophilia scandal was present in the Church during the sexual revolution. Then again, I would say the sexual revolution, leading to deviants infiltrating the priesthood, was responsible for that one, not priestly celibacy.

2) Unless you can actually find a correlation, I would say no. In the meantime, I could list a couple studies that shows there 'is' no correlation.