How about dropping the celibacy thing for nuns too?

Sounds like necessity is the mother of policy lately.

So after your marriage by a married priest, can you smoke pot on your honeymoon while you clean your machine gun?

/Depends on the economy son. Depends on the economy...

nvmac: Sounds like necessity is the mother of policy lately.

So after your marriage by a married priest, can you smoke pot on your honeymoon while you clean your machine gun?

/Depends on the economy son. Depends on the economy...

Depends, is it an outdoor marriage, or in a church?

Would hit it like a bad habit.

I'm not positive but I think the celibacy thing is pretty recent. I know there's a loophole for priests who were already married before converting to Catholicism. They really need to get rid of the policy. The priests need an outlet so they'll leave their altar boys alone.

/only twice on Sunday

So basically we'd be the Episcopal Church?

keeny_75: I'm not positive but I think the celibacy thing is pretty recent. I know there's a loophole for priests who were already married before converting to Catholicism. They really need to get rid of the policy. The priests need an outlet so they'll leave their altar boys alone.

No, the priests need a reminder of what self-control is and training in how to exercise it. As a matter of fact, a bloody big segment of the American population could use the same thing. I'm not Catholic, so I really don't care one way or the other, but if the all-controlling boss of your religion says one thing, you don't go back home and start spouting off about doing the exact opposite. Not if you hope to retain your position in the church (moot for Egen), membership in the Church, or even your life.

The End is Near: It'd sure go a long way towards convincing the non-Catholic public they're anything more than NAMBLA with collars and ornate hats.

This interpretation is the media's fault - that's how they've been playing it up. The media could also get a clue, become responsible in their reporting, and straighten out a lot of this mess just by delivering the facts without overdramatizing or delivering editorial in the guise of "news".

McManus_brothers: So basically we'd be the Episcopal Church?

Way better calzones at our street fairs, though.

I never thought I'd see batteries and pre-pubescent boys in the same sentence.

McManus_brothers: So basically we'd be the Episcopal Church?

Either that, or the Orthodox Church (which has been practicing that since the Early Church period)...without the Greek chant and very high liturgy.


We Lutherans laugh at your antics, your Eminence. (new window)

/pastor's wife

Celibacy was adopted by the church (11th century) to protect property from inheritance. Priests were allowed to marry and have mistresses before that.

The Martintuckian: I never thought I'd see batteries and pre-pubescent boys in the same sentence.

Add incest, vomiting and murder and you got an Aristocrats joke.

xlbrooklyn: The End is Near: It'd sure go a long way towards convincing the non-Catholic public they're anything more than NAMBLA with collars and ornate hats.

This interpretation is the media's fault - that's how they've been playing it up. The media could also get a clue, become responsible in their reporting, and straighten out a lot of this mess just by delivering the facts without overdramatizing or delivering editorial in the guise of "news".

So the Church protecting the guilty by moving them around, hiding them from the law and pressuring the victims into silence had nothing to do with the image that the Church is protecting the guilty with no concern for the welfare of the victims?

"I think it has to be looked at and I'm not so sure it wouldn't be a good idea to decide on the basis of geography and culture not to make an across-the-board determination. You know that there are many oriental, Catholic, the Roman Catholic Rights, in which they do get married, no problem at all," said Egan.

Wouldn't that be "rites"? Durrrrr.....

think of how many kittehs could be saved

keeny_75: I'm not positive but I think the celibacy thing is pretty recent.

Well, about a thousand years, so not real recent. But it's not a matter of doctrine or anything on that level, so they can change at any time pretty easy.

And the church for a long time gladly looked the other way at various bishops, cardinals and even popes having kids. The whole no sex before marriage thing not being a going issue at the time.

Oh and there was one case of a son of a pope becoming a pope himself.

Then there are the deposed popes, a couple popes who served more than one term, popes who weren't even priests and the fun goes on and on.

Spanky_McFarksalot: Celibacy was adopted by the church (11th century) to protect property from inheritance. Priests were allowed to marry and have mistresses before that.

Nope. Please read more carefully next time. Church law pretty clear on the celibacy thing from late antiquity onwards.

Spanky_McFarksalot: Celibacy was adopted by the church (11th century) to protect property from inheritance. Priests were allowed to marry and have mistresses before that.

It's about money. It's always about money.

Where was this bold, forward-thinking stance BEFORE his retirement?

thaduke: Nope. Please read more carefully next time.

You may want to look up both Pope Benedict VIII and Pope Innocent II.

Church law pretty clear on the celibacy thing from late antiquity onwards.

It must not have been that clear if it took until the 12th century to do something about it.

MadTheologian: Either that, or the Orthodox Church (which has been practicing that since the Early Church period)...without the Greek chant and very high liturgy.

The Orthodox Church is pretty intriguing to me. Very mystical, in a way.

The End is Near: you'd still have a human being that Catholics pretend is infallible

The Pope only gets the infallible thing in a couple very narrow circumstances. How narrow? Well Pope John Paul II was the second longest serving Pope. In his time as Pope not one thing he said was covered by papal infallibility. Indeed going back to 1850 only two papal declarations have been so covered.

thaduke: Church law pretty clear on the celibacy thing from late antiquity onwards.

Actually what the old laws state is that a cleric upon attaining certain offices eg bishop, can not engage in sexual relations, even with his wife. However this wasn't very well enforced. But a married man could receive holy order and be a priest, become a bishop etc. It wasn't until later that canon law was changed to declare that a married man could not receive holy orders. And the reason was that all these married men had kids and were giving church property to their kids as inheritance.

McManus_brothers: So basically we'd be the Episcopal Church?

You'd still have the guilt.

The End is Near: It's a completely illogical concept, as it puts the Pope on a pedestal next to God while completely ignoring the fact that the Bible says all men are born with original sin and sin by nature.

It's a lie. An out and out lie.

The Bible thing or the Pope thing? Or both?

Ed Grubermann: So the Church protecting the guilty by moving them around, hiding them from the law and pressuring the victims into silence had nothing to do with the image that the Church is protecting the guilty with no concern for the welfare of the victims?

I didn't say that. But "NAMBLA with collars and hats" is how the media plays it - they go far beyond mere reportage of the facts. They judge, they overdramatize, they deal in fear, and make it seem like behind every vestment is a kiddie-diddler. And that's just not the case.

Catholic priests aren't celibate, they just don't have sex with women.

The End is Near: The point is that there's anything the Pope says which can be considered infallible to begin with.

Given that infallibility applies only to dogmatic issues, it's not that much of an issue.

are born with original sin and sin by nature.

Really the Bible says that? The Bible never mentions original sin. It was a concept developed starting in the second century with Ireneaus and then going on for a couple centuries until Augustine laid down the first definition that was adopted wholesale by the church. However his definition, as well as his explanation, weren't the last word on it, nor is either what's used today.

WhyteRaven74:

thaduke: Church law pretty clear on the celibacy thing from late antiquity onwards.

Actually what the old laws state is that a cleric upon attaining certain offices eg bishop, can not engage in sexual relations, even with his wife. However this wasn't very well enforced. But a married man could receive holy order and be a priest, become a bishop etc. It wasn't until later that canon law was changed to declare that a married man could not receive holy orders. And the reason was that all these married men had kids and were giving church property to their kids as inheritance.

Note that the statement to which I was responding was incorrect by the definitions you imply. Priests were not allowed before the 11th century, by canon law, to marry, nor have mistresses. In practice, maybe. The change over married men becoming priests, I concede. But all priests were supposed to be 'celibate' before and after the 11th century, if by celibate you mean 'abstaining from sexual intercourse'.

WhyteRaven74:
thaduke: Church law pretty clear on the celibacy thing from late antiquity onwards.

Actually what the old laws state is that a cleric upon attaining certain offices eg bishop, can not engage in sexual relations, even with his wife. However this wasn't very well enforced. But a married man could receive holy order and be a priest, become a bishop etc. It wasn't until later that canon law was changed to declare that a married man could not receive holy orders. And the reason was that all these married men had kids and were giving church property to their kids as inheritance.

I might also add that the Carolingians (9th century) laid down canon law which effectively forbade married priests. E.g. Council of Worms, 868: Placuit, ut episcopi, presbyteri, diaconi, subdiaconi abstineant se ab conjugibus et non generent filios. Quod si hoc decretum violaverint ab honore clericatus pellantur.

My friend's dad is an ex-priest and his mom is an ex-nun. They left their "calling" before they met each other. Weird how that worked out.

Some of my family is Ukrainian Orthodox, and some is Anglican/Episcopalian, and I have attended both churches and made some inquiries over the years at both, so my $.02:

In many Eastern Orthodox churches you have to be either married or a monk (and take a vow of celibacy) to be a priest - you at least have a choice, but they won't let single non-monk men be priests. However, to be a bishop you have to be a widower or a monk.

However, I don't think Episcopalians/Anglicans have a hard-and-fast rule on this - I know of a couple of single men and women who are priests, but AFAIK they didn't have to publicly vow to be permanenty celibate and/or unmarried (the celibacy before marriage is implied, though).

thaduke: Council of Worms,

There was no council held in Worms. There is the Concordat of Worms, but it dates to 1122. It was confirmed at the First Lateran Council, or First Council of the Lateran, in 1123.

Is his middle name really Cardinal? That seems highly convenient.

Spanky_McFarksalot: Celibacy was adopted by the church (11th century) to protect property from inheritance. Priests were allowed to marry and have mistresses before that.

You forgot to mention that the priests\cardinals\bishops where starting powerful mafia type families, a lot of money and land. The pope wanted to be the one with the most power, not individual bishops and so forth. Also, the government wasn't too keen to having competition.

Mabman: I know of a couple of single men and women who are priests, but AFAIK they didn't have to publicly vow to be permanenty celibate and/or unmarried

They can marry. The only rules are self-adopted ones among some high Anglican orders, who are Anglicans who identify with Catholic traditions. But the Anglican church itself, allows married men and women to be ordained and allows single people to be ordained and then marry.

Ah, celibacy... The only sexual perversion openly supported by churches.

Actually it would've been more fun if he brought up the idea of women being ordained priests. That always gets all kinds of people, not just conservative Catholics, up in arms.

a NY cardinal can't open the door for anything.

Isn't that an option already anyway? if you want to be a celibate priest, you apply for the ones with the little white thing on their neck. If you want to be a priest who can "get married", you apply for the american ones, like the guy from "7th heaven". Everybody happy (except the gays. fark them)

It's not like they don't already know if they can or cannot fark before they get into it...

punto: ou apply for the ones with the little white thing on their neck.

Anglican/Episcopalian priests where the white clerical collars too, and can be married before becoming priests or marry after becoming priests.

If they could marry, they wouldn't use birth control. More kids than most average families for the Church to have to support.

The End is Near:

Well, you'd still have a human being that Catholics pretend is infallible, and we'd still laugh at you for being so silly, so you'd have that going for you.

And I'd laugh at you for not knowing the definition of papal infallibility.

//ha ha.

You religious folks do realise that, from the outside, all this debate sounds like a few guys in their parent's basement arguing heatedly over whether a 12th-level Cleric can use the Sword of Purity, if a Paladin may in emergencies use the +5 vs. Heat Damage Plate Mail which was worn by a defeated Anti-Paladin without immediately taking -4 permanent damage to Wisdom, or whether they may in fact in the foreseeable future have sex with an Actual Female Human Being.
/not atheist
//just agnostic
///because I have no idea of what god or gods are out there
////and, no matter what kind of robes they wear, I don't think anyone does either.
//just for the slashies...

Came for the pics of Sally Field.

/left disappointed

The End is Near: And I'd still laugh at you for believing anything a human being says is the true and undeniable will of God.

A pope speaking infallibly never claims to be speaking the will of God, only merely stating or clarifying a matter of dogma. He's not saying "This is what God wants", he's saying "This is what we believe".

loser_death_spiral: Came for the pics of Sally Field.

/left disappointed




You're welcome!

loser_death_spiral:




You're welcome.

Cardinal Egan?

I think it would be a terrible idea for priests and nuns to give up on chastity and celibacy.

Though most young people reject the idea, mating and raising children takes a hell of a lot of energy. And while the amount of energy people have varies tremendously, those who do not mate and raise children have energy they can use for other things.

Only in recent years have priests and nuns mostly avoided the chaos and bloodshed of the times. For most of history, they were often part of societies defenses against violence and destruction. Many people's lives were saved because of the actions, the strength and energy, of priests and nuns. And this says nothing of the extra effort they were able to give for purely spiritual reasons.

For most, it is agonizingly hard to control their biological impulses. But that, as well, acts to strengthen the character, and find the internal strength to overcome the command to mate. It would be a loss to their faith if they surrender to their impulses. It and they will be diminished if they give up their fight, solely so they can be like ordinary men and women.

Enough people breed and have children, or practice mating for the fun of it. Why resent those who choose a harder path?