Married Priests

[Daniel]

I'm sure that Christ wanted his priests to be married! Having the support of a loving partner works wonders !! Secondly, the priest will have his theories tested by his very sons. In the family there would be a practical test for all the gospel theories which would ensure that the preacher stays very close to humans. :rofl:

[dizzle]

Dear Daniel.. welcome to TheologyWeb!! FYI - I am going to move this thread into Theology 102...

[spl_cadet]

03-08-2003 @ 09:57 PM
Daniel:
I'm sure that Christ wanted his priests to be married! Having the support of a loving partner works wonders !!

Possibly. But does that mean that single people can't also be effective priests? Plus, a single man will be more focused on God and not distracted by his family.


Secondly, the priest will have his theories tested by his very sons. In the family there would be a practical test for all the gospel theories which would ensure that the preacher stays very close to humans. :rofl:

Theories?! The Church doesn't theorize, it knows.

[Daniel]

spl-cadet,
If I don't have enough time for my family because of my work, so what doctors, lawyers, professors (and all the rest of the workers) do? In my country many people work part-time after their full time job. So why can't the priest marry and work as priest?

Please note this board is open for mature discussion. If you don't agree (you have every right) there is no need to resort to old tactics (intimidating) such as: This post has not been certified by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Any complaints should be directed to Cardinal Ratzinger.
May God bless you!
Fr. Daniel :rofl:

[Ishmael]

Dear Daniel: Did you know you can take some medication that might make you a little bit more coherant?

[InquisitorKind]

Fr. Daniel

Does Fr. stand for friar...? If so, what religion are you?

~Matt

[spl_cadet]

03-10-2003 @ 11:14 AM
Daniel:

spl-cadet,
If I don't have enough time for my family because of my work, so what doctors, lawyers, professors (and all the rest of the workers) do? In my country many people work part-time after their full time job. So why can't the priest marry and work as priest?

Because there is a ton of work that they have to do. I remember our founding pastor at my parish said that he wouldn't have time for a family at all with the amount of work he had.


Please note this board is open for mature discussion. If you don't agree (you have every right) there is no need to resort to old tactics (intimidating) such as: This post has not been certified by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Any complaints should be directed to Cardinal Ratzinger.
May God bless you!
Fr. Daniel :rofl:

joke
n.

1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
4. Informal.
1. Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality: The accident was no joke.
2. An object of amusement or laughter; a laughingstock: His loud tie was the joke of the office.

[spl_cadet]

03-10-2003 @ 12:55 PM
InquisitorKind:
Does Fr. stand for friar...? If so, what religion are you?
~Matt

Father actually iirc. And I'd bet that he's Eastern Orthodox, probably Greek Orthodox to be specific.

[Jaltus]

Dear Daniel: Did you know you can take some medication that might make you a little bit more coherant?At least he is more coherent (NB) than you are.

[Daniel]

I'm a Roman Catholic married priest. :rofl:
My website is found at: http://pages.ivillage.com/imhabba63/marriedcatholicpriest

[spl_cadet]

03-10-2003 @ 10:14 PM
Daniel:

I'm a Roman Catholic married priest. :rofl:
My website is found at: http://pages.ivillage.com/imhabba63/marriedcatholicpriest

You also appear to be highly heretical judging by some of the stuff that is on your site. I suggest that you conform to the teachings of the Church.

[Daniel]

Each time one challenges some teaching he is called heretical! By the way the Vatican Council II incorporated some of the ideas of those called 'heretics'. Does it ring a bell ?:rofl:

[InquisitorKind]

03-11-2003 @ 04:53 PM
Daniel:

Each time one challenges some teaching he is called heretical! By the way the Vatican Council II incorporated some of the ideas of those called 'heretics'. Does it ring a bell ?:rofl:

And who said Catholics were united...? Sounds just like a batch of "Protestantism disagreements" to me.

~Matt

[spl_cadet]

03-11-2003 @ 01:53 PM
Daniel:
Each time one challenges some teaching he is called heretical!

Well, yeah. That's kinda the definition of heretic.


By the way the Vatican Council II incorporated some of the ideas of those called 'heretics'. Does it ring a bell ?:rofl:

Name those teachings.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Are they forbidden to marry, or is it their choice. Paul kind of had some harsh words for forbidding marriage. It should be a personal decision, not church mandated.

[spl_cadet]

03-11-2003 @ 09:49 PM
Bill the Cat:
Are they forbidden to marry, or is it their choice. Paul kind of had some harsh words for forbidding marriage. It should be a personal decision, not church mandated.

It's a discipline within the Latin Rite. They only take single people (or married priests from the Anglicans or Episcopilians or similar) to be priests. The other four rites (such as the Byzantine Rite) do allow married people to become priests, but they choose their bishops from the ranks of the singles.

[Daniel]

To name just one of them is about baptism. We used to say that those without baptism cannot go to heaven. Now we respect all persons of good will and believe that if they live according to their conscience, then, they TOO can go to heaven.

[spl_cadet]

03-12-2003 @ 12:04 PM
Daniel:

To name just one of them is about baptism. We used to say that those without baptism cannot go to heaven.

Would you mind quoting a document on that?


Now we respect all persons of good will and believe that if they live according to their conscience, then, they TOO can go to heaven.

Actually we don't believe that. Try looking at the Catechism.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

03-12-2003 @ 10:25 AM
spl_cadet:



It's a discipline within the Latin Rite. They only take single people (or married priests from the Anglicans or Episcopilians or similar) to be priests. The other four rites (such as the Byzantine Rite) do allow married people to become priests, but they choose their bishops from the ranks of the singles.

But that doesn't answer my question. If a priest came to his cardinal and wanted to marry, could he remain a priest, or is he asked to turn in his collar?

[Daniel]

If one is interested in looking for documents then there is a large collection. Just look at the old catechism. Regarding the new position (non-baptized people) just consult the Second Vatican Council.
Regarding married priests, please note that priests used to marry in the first thousand years since the coming of Christ!
Please note that our opinions can't change facts!:rofl:

[spl_cadet]

03-12-2003 @ 10:28 PM
Daniel:

If one is interested in looking for documents then there is a large collection. Just look at the old catechism.

CCC:
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. 60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. 61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. 62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." 63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.


Regarding the new position (non-baptized people) just consult the Second Vatican Council.

The teachings of which are contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.


Regarding married priests, please note that priests used to marry in the first thousand years since the coming of Christ!
Please note that our opinions can't change facts!:rofl:

It was however not encouraged and was in fact discouraged.

[spl_cadet]

03-12-2003 @ 09:15 PM
Bill the Cat:
But that doesn't answer my question. If a priest came to his cardinal and wanted to marry, could he remain a priest, or is he asked to turn in his collar?

As I recall, they ask for a release from their vows. I'm not sure though, I've never studied this matter too much.

[Jin-Roh]

:shy:

I've never actually seen a doctrine debate between two catholics before. I haven't called myself Catholic in a long time, and I lack CC, so I'm just going to keep my mouth shut on the internals of the Roman Church.

Although, I do think preists should be allowed to marry, and I don't think homosexuality should be condoned.

[Daniel]

I presume that you didn't get the spirit of the Vatican Council. The church undergone a radical change where it looked for a fruitful dialogue with the 'world'. It understood that those who were condemned were in fact on the right track. Those who are not baptized maybe saved because indirectly they meet Jesus Christ too. A famous theologian called them anonimous christians. :rofl:

[spl_cadet]

03-13-2003 @ 10:32 PM
Daniel:

I presume that you didn't get the spirit of the Vatican Council. The church undergone a radical change where it looked for a fruitful dialogue with the 'world'. It understood that those who were condemned were in fact on the right track. Those who are not baptized maybe saved because indirectly they meet Jesus Christ too. A famous theologian called them anonimous christians. :rofl:

Document that assertion of yours. It most certainly isn't in the Catechism (is in fact contradicted by the Catechism) and I sincerely doubt that it is in Vatican II.

[spl_cadet]

03-13-2003 @ 08:38 PM
Jin-Roh:
I've never actually seen a doctrine debate between two catholics before.

Neither have I. Never had the chance to debate someone in the Modernist heresy.


Although, I do think preists should be allowed to marry, and I don't think homosexuality should be condoned.

Homosexuality isn't condoned. Homosexuals are called to chastity and homosexual acts are strictly forbidden.

[Daniel]

If you want documents then read 'The church in the modern world' (Gaudium et Spes). But I doubt that it's a problem of documentation! It's more what we call a theological outlook on life.

Regarding homosexuality, if you don't agree with homosexuals then please call the many priests who are secrectly homosexuals, to leave the church! :rofl:

[spl_cadet]

03-14-2003 @ 11:41 AM
Daniel:
If you want documents then read 'The church in the modern world' (Gaudium et Spes). But I doubt that it's a problem of documentation! It's more what we call a theological outlook on life.

Will do after school today.


Regarding homosexuality, if you don't agree with homosexuals then please call the many priests who are secrectly homosexuals, to leave the church! :rofl:

I don't have a problem with that at all. And the Vatican has condemned the ordaining of homosexuals fyi.

[Daniel]

If all the homosexual priests were to leave then the number of the remaining priests in the church will be greatly reduced!!:rofl:

[Andrew]

"Now we respect all persons of good will and believe that if they live according to their conscience, then, they TOO can go to heaven."

You're freaking me out. Lol, you sound like a Muslim, not a Christian.

[Andrew]

As to you initial post, Daniel, I don't see what priests shouldn't get married.

[undead]

Homos in the church? You gotta be joking. What nationality is your wife?

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 12:13 PM
Daniel:
If all the homosexual priests were to leave then the number of the remaining priests in the church will be greatly reduced!!:rofl:

Price we'll have to pay.

[Dave]

brought up Scripture as examples, I guess I will.

Jesus thought celibacy was a good thing.

Matthew 19:12
For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage (19:12 Or have made themselves eunuchs) because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Matthew 19:29-30 29 And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.

Paul seems to think an unmarried person can better serve God.

1Cor 7:
32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife-- 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world--how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

I guess it's a good enough way to kick off your first post. :yipee:

Peace,
Dave

[Daniel]

Then you have to revise your knowledge of the contemporary theology! :rofl:

[George Blaisdell]

Cadet writes:

“
Regarding homosexuality, if you don't agree with homosexuals then please call the many priests who are secrectly homosexuals, to leave the church!
”


> I don't have a problem with that at all. And the Vatican has condemned the ordaining of homosexuals fyi.

In Orthodoxy, ones passions do not determine one's candidacy for the priesthood, but one's mastery over them in Christ. We have tons of married pirests, but none who have been married after becoming a priest. You wanna be a married priest? You marry prior to ordination!

And in Orthodoxy, ANY action of homosexual deeds, whether by clergy or by the flock, results in immediate loss of communion in the Church, as does any instance of sex outside of marriage of any kind, and the process for re-entry into the communion of the Church involves a lot of time, prayer, fasting, penance and repentance. Clergy are ousted immediately upon established discovery of any sexual misconduct...

The existence of a passion, such as sexual desires of any kind, is not what counts, but ones actions... The thoughts are the battleground, and if the enemy makes it into conduct and action, one is taken out of communion for one's own good, for it would be unto one's condemnation, rather than one's salvation, and the path to re-instatement is then stepped...

So in Orthodoxy, the strict question "Should priests get married?" is an emphatic "NO!" Yet to the question "Can a married person become a priest?" the answer is an equally emphatic "YES!"

And married priests do indeed make for better - e.g. more emphatic - marriage counsellors - They get humbled by their wives enough to effortlessly understand the poor and penitent slob confessing his desire to yell insults at his wife. They are walking the talk...

geo

[Daniel]

The real problem is not because one wishes to marry after the ordination but is rather because of the poor choice and lacking formation one receives early in life. One decides to be celibate the rest of his life when one still does not himself!

Why it is not permissible to marry after ordination? Unintentionally you are referring to marriage as something bad!
Regarding homosexuality it all depends how you view it. If one accepts it then the problem of sin disappears.

[undead]

Yesterday @ 04:02 PM
George Blaisdell:
So in Orthodoxy, the strict question "Should priests get married?" is an emphatic "NO!" Yet to the question "Can a married person become a priest?" the answer is an equally emphatic "YES!"


You contradict scripture: 1Cr 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Paul was speaking as one unmarried. He had the same power as those apostles who were married.


And married priests do indeed make for better - e.g. more emphatic - marriage counsellors - They get humbled by their wives enough to effortlessly understand the poor and penitent slob confessing his desire to yell insults at his wife. They are walking the talk...


Not necessarily. The state is the main organ humiliating husbands today, by empowering their wives to divorce them at the drop of a hat, thereby effectively making every husband the serf of his wife. That is the main issue in marriages and it does not take a married person to understand that.

In fact, it is questionable whether the concept of "marriage" has not disappeared from many occidental societies, as, eg in places like Italy, a wife has a legal right to sleep with whom ever she wishes, quite apart from any will of her "husband". In other words, marriage confers no exclusivity of sleeping partner under law.

[Jawa Man]

"Why it is not permissible to marry after ordination? Unintentionally you are referring to marriage as something bad!
Regarding homosexuality it all depends how you view it. If one accepts it then the problem of sin disappears."

Yes, it does! So if you view it from the worldly viewpoint, you can accept it as a sinless act, and from Christ's viewpoint, a fowl act. And when you say all people will meet Christ or whatever... are you saying all people go to Heaven? That is New Age Hippie Junk if I've ever seen it!

Anyway, since I accept murder as a fun sport, I suppose since I view it that way it's not sinful... is it?

Anyway, priests should be married if God wills it, simply. Whatever God wills will work out. :yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee:

Also...
To name just one of them is about baptism. We used to say that those without baptism cannot go to heaven. Now we respect all persons of good will and believe that if they live according to their conscience, then, they TOO can go to heaven.

But we know from Paul's teachings that our conscience condemns ourselves. Whatever law we live by we will be judged by. That means Christ is the only practical answer, as we could never follow our conscience perfectly.

[Daniel]

1. I don't see the link between murder and homosexuality. It is a known fact that some people are born homosexual and feel that way. If we believe God created mankind then we cannot say that he created something bad. Murder is completely different!
2. If someone doesn't hear about Christ, how can he follow Christ?

[George Blaisdell]

Daniel writes:

> "If we believe God created mankind then we cannot say that he created something bad."

Mankind is fallen. And the world fell with Adam. We can look to God, or we can look to self. The problem surrounding sexual issues is that of gratuitous pleasure - self-satisfaction, involving physically and psychically the whole of the person so engaged. Christ's commandment to us is clear - We are to deny our selves, pick up our cross, and follow Him. Gratuitous sexual self-satisfaction turns us 180 degrees away from God, and brought destruction to a whole city in ancient times...

As Christians, if we are sexually incontinent, we are to marry, and bring our incontinence into the enclosure that is found within the sanctity of the marriage bed - We are not to in any other way give "expression" to our sexual desires... Except by confession, repentance, prayer and fasting... These are the tried and proven ways of continence... The acting out of sexual passions outside this frame but affirms the wicked times in which we live.

Know you not that we are called to be "redeeming the times"? And this by our very lives in Christ?

geo

[Daniel]

"if we are sexually incontinent, we are to marry".
Sorry, what kind of marriage is this? This is the type of publicity which puts our religion in a very bad light. If marriage is simply viewed as having sex than I prefer not to marry at all. What about caring, relationship, understanding, dialogue etc....??

[George Blaisdell]

Today @ 07:52 AM
Daniel:

"if we are sexually incontinent, we are to marry".
Sorry, what kind of marriage is this? This is the type of publicity which puts our religion in a very bad light. If marriage is simply viewed as having sex than I prefer not to marry at all. What about caring, relationship, understanding, dialogue etc....??


Daniel - You are right - That would make for a lousy marriage. Caring, understanding, relationship, and dialogue are all essential elements of a good and holy marriage.

The issue I was addressing was sexual incontinence outside marriage, and what is to be done about it, which is to bring it under the aegis of marriage within the Body of Christ, and these are loving and caring relationships in Christ...

Paul addresses this incontinence issue in 1 Cor 7:1-7... Beginning with "Due to the fornications...[porneiras]..."

Sorry it came off as some kind of a sexual release program! There is a way in which it CAN be seen this way, and especially, I suppose, for the Corinthians, and on second thought, given today's culture in the US, that might not be bad advice for converts! Yet much more is marriage than mere sexual release, so I apologize for a majorly less than adequate presentation...

geo

[Daniel]

The bible was written by human beings. We can't simply quote a passage and make it infallible. In those days the psychological, biological, medical, human knowledge was VERY LIMITED.
In today's world we can offer more solutions then simply 'marriage' for those having a lustful look or wish.

[George Blaisdell]

Daniel:[/i] writes:

> The bible was written by human beings.

So was the Encyclopedia Britannica. The difference, for a Christian, is that the Bible is a Holy Work, given unto us in the form of matter, in ink upon parchment, by God through His Holy Body, the Church, written by those holy ones in His Body whom He instructed and gave to do so.

> We can't simply quote a passage and make it infallible.

What I have found is that outside the Body of Christ, the meanings of the words of the Bible are basically a crap-shoot of secular and/or heretical opinion. The meaning of these words is to be found in the pillar and ground of the truths, and this pillar and ground of truth is the Church, which consists of those called out from the world and unto Christ.

Anyone can have an opinion. I've got tons of them, and they all add up to death in Adam. Christ is the Truth, and His body is the ground and support of the truths of Christ.

> In those days the psychological, biological, medical, human knowledge was VERY LIMITED.

Indeed... Are you saying that Christ was thereby VERY LIMITED? That if only He had todays latest science He would have done a better job of saving the world?

There is indeed a Biblical and Patristic understanding of the human person that is profoundly not western, being neither a post-modern nor a post-freudian theory that poses as science and focuses on the secular perfectibility of the human being. This understanding of the person is focused upon his nature as a fallen creature needing restoration unto the Creator from Whom he or she is fallen.

Modern psychology, at its very best, can only resolve difficulties between separate souls, or between separate parts of one soul... And this in material or soulish terms, and at that, not consistently, for what it finds is that a person's motivation is as central to the healing process as is any skill on the part of the psychologist wielding the "science"...

And when you finally get all the conflicts ironed out, and the careers and lives on track without disruptions, you still have a fallen human being who is now personally, socially and materially successful, who dies of old age surrounded by loving family, and unreconciled to God.

Reconciliation to God is tribulation in the world...

> In today's world we can offer more solutions than simply 'marriage' for those having a lustful look or wish.

True enough, and in those days, they had castration - The Ethiopian eunich comes to mind - But today, we have chemicals that can do the same, and prisons for serious sexual offenders... Whom all our science cannot cure...

And yet, for the non-criminals, and the equally not-curable, the sexual addicts, such as those Corinthians were, who received the mysteries and tried to take them into the world of sexual relationships outside of marriage, and those who today are the pleasure seekers, the ectacy party folks, the compulsively addicted weekend thrill seekers, going from bar to bar, our science has no cure... And even when it is successful within its parameters, God is still out of the equation...

"In the world, ye will find tribulation..."

Our reconciliation with God flies in the face of the logic of the world, for in it we find the peace of Christ that surpasses ALL human understanding...

geo

[Daniel]

It comes down to how we are going to interpret the bible. If we simply quote it word by word (as it is), we are simply degrading it. Why all the years of study? Why do we bother with history, geography, greek, hebrew etc.. in order to understand better the bible?

God wrote the bible through sinful and weak human beings who used the metaphor of their times. Hence we simply cannot quote blindly without understanding the whole context (including modern sciences which help us understand better the Bible).

I don't understand why you are putting modern subjects on an inferiour level!

[spl_cadet]

Yesterday @ 11:07 PM
Daniel:

The bible was written by human beings. We can't simply quote a passage and make it infallible. In those days the psychological, biological, medical, human knowledge was VERY LIMITED.

Your point being? God's morality is the same and I think that He knows more about that stuff than we do.


In today's world we can offer more solutions then simply 'marriage' for those having a lustful look or wish.

Not without violating God's laws.

[Daniel]

I believe that God gives us intelligence to use it!
We can't simply put away all that other sciences discover with great pain ! God uses these sciences too in order to show us his infinite love!

[George Blaisdell]

Yesterday @ 08:03 AM
Daniel:

It comes down to how we are going to interpret the bible. If we simply quote it word by word (as it is), we are simply degrading it. Why all the years of study? Why do we bother with history, geography, greek, hebrew etc.. in order to understand better the bible?

God wrote the bible through sinful and weak human beings who used the metaphor of their times. Hence we simply cannot quote blindly without understanding the whole context (including modern sciences which help us understand better the Bible).

I don't understand why you are putting modern subjects on an inferiour level!


The answer, in a word, is that the Bible was not written in modern understandings.

We have become so enchanted with our modern science that we have lost the epistemology of faith, which is a life lived in the body of Christ. And the beginning of this faith is discipleship, which is the cleansing of the heart in prayer and repentance unto baptism into this body of Christ, the Church, at which point the real effort begins, for we are called to contest in the race set out before us, from victory to victory, from glory to glory, and the one overcoming shall be granted to sit on the throne with Christ, just as Christ overcame and sits with His Father... [Rev 3:21]

It is within this faith that overcomes our passion for the things of the earth that are unto corruption and death in Adam that we find the truths, of which the Church is the pillar and ground... There is nothing in the Bible about following a carefully laid out gathering of as much data as possible for careful scientific analysis and sifting... What is called for is purification of the heart, the turning away from the world and its cares and the turning toward God, calling on the name of the Lord in heartfelt confession and prayer - This is the methodology of knowing the truths of Christ... We have to do our part, for Christ has done His, and God is faithful...

The mystery of Christ's Faith, which we are to be holding in a pure conscience, is not to be acquired in the efforts of our minds, which but leads us inevitably to vanity, but in repentance from our heart's corruptions...

The Bible was written by men of God, and these God bearing men were neither filled with sin nor weak, but lived in the purity of conscience that only a truely repentant and grace filled life can know. These were men who overcame the sin of the world in Christ, and indeed the Gospel writers were themselves actually taught by Him in the flesh...

God did not just go down to skid row and pick up some drunks and have them write the Bible! He wrote it through men who were pillars of His household, those who, with and in Him, had overcome the world, whose obedience in Christ was legendary, just as was Christ's obedience to the Father...

So if we are going to understand the Bible, we need to begin with prayer and repentance unto the cleansing of our corrupted hearts, that we should come to worship in Spirit and Truth, for only by knowing the One True God can we understand the Bible. And outside the process of discipleship, outside a life lived in faith, there is no amount of scientific study that will help anyone ever answer your question of: "...how we are going to interpret the bible..."

Science can easily waste the lifetimes of a thousand lives in the analytical study of but any 5 words of text... Or less... Without any cleansing of any soul whatsoever...

geo

[George Blaisdell]

Yesterday @ 10:13 PM
Daniel:

I believe that God gives us intelligence to use it!
We can't simply put away all that other sciences discover with great pain ! God uses these sciences too in order to show us his infinite love!

From the life of St. Arsenius [350-445AD]


http://www.saintmark.com/topics/synexarion/arsenius.html
_______________________________

Being asked one day why he, being so well educated, sought the instruction and advice of a certain monk who was an utter stranger to all literature, he replied, "I am not unacquainted with the learning of the Greeks and the Romans; but I have not yet learned the alphabet of the science of the saints, whereof this seemingly ignorant Egyptian is master". Evagrius of Pontus who, after he had distinguished himself at Constantinople by his learning, had retired into the desert of Nitria in 385, expressed surprise that many learned men made no progress in virtue, whilst many Egyptians, who did not even know the letters of the alphabet, arrived at a high degree of contemplation. Arsenius answered, "We make no progress because we dwell in that exterior learning which puffs up the mind; but these illiterate Egyptians have a true sense of their own weakness, blindness, and insufficiency; and by that very thing they are qualified to labor successfully in the pursuit of virtue".

Arsenius often passed the whole night in watching and prayer, and on Saturdays it was his custom to go to prayers turning his back to the evening sun, and continue with his hands lifted up to Heaven till the sun shone on his face the next morning.
_______________________________

n.b. "I have not yet learned the alphabet of the science of the saints..."

You see, it is WE who are the illiterates... As we parade our science to the glory of the conceit of our thoughts...

geo

[Daniel]

Why then does the church oblige its priests to study for many years? Is it sign that it doesn't believe in the Spirit ?

[George Blaisdell]

Today @ 01:12 PM
Daniel:

Why then does the church oblige its priests to study for many years? Is it sign that it doesn't believe in the Spirit ?

The clergy serves the members of the Church, as well as all its other duties, and hence needs a lot of training in all the things it will need to be doing. The individual person does not have all this to attend... Different callings...

In Orthodoxy, the priesthood is not necessarily the holiest arm of the Church - The monastics normally are, and they require no formal education whatsoever... Even though a lot of them have a lot of years in school...

geo

[Daniel]

What I had in mind was that the church itself does not rely on saintity but rather study..! There's quite a difference with the choice of the apostles of the early church!

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

03-18-2003 @ 01:23 AM
Daniel:

1. I don't see the link between murder and homosexuality. It is a known fact that some people are born homosexual and feel that way. If we believe God created mankind then we cannot say that he created something bad. Murder is completely different!
2. If someone doesn't hear about Christ, how can he follow Christ?

Point 1 people being born gay? You really need to read this article about the 3 most popular studies:
http://www.newdirection.ca/a_biol.htm

Point 2 Paul says something about the law of conscience for people never exposed to the Gospel. Once one knows about the law, one is responsible for it, not before.

Back to the thread... shall we??:yipee: :yipee:

It was posted in a response to my question about marriage after ordination, that the Priest is asked to turn in his collar. I am really not in agreement with this. Peter was married, and I see no forbidding of anyone to get married in the NT. I think the reason Paul was not married was that he was a traveller. He could not be an effective husband to his wife travelling as much as he did. He saw no problem with this, but condemned anyone strongly :whip: anyone who forbids marriage. The "strong discouragement" is not biblical.

[John Reece]

Jennifer Ferrara, in her contribution to the article, "Ordaining Women: Two Views", in the April issue of First Things gives the best rationale for the Catholic tradition of celibate male priests that I have ever read.

I’m not a Catholic, but I found her article to be rather profound and impressive.

Mrs. Ferrara is a former feminist and a former Lutheran pastor.
Anyone who has any interest in questions related to Catholic priesthood should read Ferrara’s article.

[George Blaisdell]

Today @ 06:14 AM
Daniel:

What I had in mind was that the church itself does not rely on saintity but rather study..! There's quite a difference with the choice of the apostles of the early church!

In Orthodoxy, the study of of the faith is definitely subordinate to the doing of the faith. It is not one vs the other, but the faith can be held in a purified conscience [as Paul writes] without a whole lot of study, by a process of discipleship under a spiritual father, like Paul was [Remember him writing: "Ye have many teachers, but few fathers, in Christ."?]

The words of teaching and edification are important, but more by way of instruction for the practice of the faith, and not for the mere intellectively correct and verbal formulaics of the tenets of dogma. For the Orthodox, if an idea does not have a practice, or a non-practice [in the case of prohibitions] as its outcome, it is not very highly regarded...

For us the important thing is to remember Christ's commandments to DO them, lest we fall away [apostasis]... Chasing the vain and shifting winds of chimeric and demon-led doctrines, and getting into great theological debates so as to hone our skills and define our own positions on matters of "great theological import" is unChristian and unBiblical... Nowhere do you find Paul instructing his milk-drinkers to do such a thing!

His words to them are exhortatory, to DO the right things, and to STOP DOING the wrong ones. ["O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?... etc."] And his instructions, his teachings, are for their correction, not for their abstract theoretical and speculative theological perusal unto the making up of their own minds...

The Church is for the soul to turn toward God, and away from the world... For the sanctification of the person in God... Schooling and education that helps this is well and good, but it is the holiness of Her saints that the Church is about... Indeed that Christ came to earth about...

geo

[George Blaisdell]

Bill the Cat:[/i] writes:


> "...question about marriage after ordination, that the Priest is asked to turn in his collar. I am really not in agreement with this.

Are you Roman Catholic? Are you Orthodox? And if neither, then why concern yourself?

> Peter was married, and I see no forbidding of anyone to get married in the NT.

No...

> I think the reason Paul was not married was that he was a traveller.

I think it was because he was a doulos of Christ [slave], and that this took up all his efforts...

> He could not be an effective husband to his wife travelling as much as he did.

Nowhere does the Bible say this, nor the writings of the Church... In fact, speaking to the Corinthians, who were sexually incontinent, he writes: "But I would that you were even as I am [continent/unmarried]."

> He saw no problem with this, but condemned anyone strongly who forbids marriage.

Methinks your brush is too broad here... Do you have a passage verifying this condemnation? He does encourage the incontinent Corinthians to marry, because of their incontinence, but would prefer them to be continent, yes??

> The "strong discouragement" is not biblical.

I do not think he tells priest's to marry in any of his epistles... They can BE married, but the setting aside of the entanglements of marriages is part of a Christian's walk in Christ, where we have a natural tendency to put the things of relationship ahead of the things of God... Yet all have their place, yes?

And I agree with you that you do not find an explicit passage in the Bible forbidding ordained priests from marrying in the early Church... They apparently did not think it was all that crucial a Biblical matter, which Bible concerns itself with the Gospels and the Epistles for the flock, and less so for the priesthood of the Church.

But if you are going to be an elder of the Church, you need to be the husband of one wife, etc... So that there would seem to be warrant for marriage, just not the specific warrant for marriage after ordination of the unmarried or the widowed...

One wife would preclude a widower in the priesthood from remarriage, yes?

geo

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The Apostle Paul taught that one of the qualifications of a pastor is that he must manage his children well. If a man can't govern his own children, how can he govern God's family? You know the verses. my question is - why does the Catholic church reject this Apostolic tradition?

[Daniel]

I presume that money is the problem. If a priest is married then they have to give him a better salary. Secondly the property of the church would be lost because the family of the priest would inherit a part of it!
Daniel
http://pages.ivillage.com/imhabba63/marriedcatholicpriest

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

...question about marriage after ordination, that the Priest is asked to turn in his collar. I am really not in agreement with this.

Are you Roman Catholic? Are you Orthodox? And if neither, then why concern yourself?

Nope, but I used to be. Just interested on the forbidding of the papacy of marriage of priests. Trying to understand my brothers in Christ.

> Peter was married, and I see no forbidding of anyone to get married in the NT.

No...

> I think the reason Paul was not married was that he was a traveller.

I think it was because he was a doulos of Christ [slave], and that this took up all his efforts...

Yeah, that too

> He could not be an effective husband to his wife travelling as much as he did.

Nowhere does the Bible say this, nor the writings of the Church... In fact, speaking to the Corinthians, who were sexually incontinent, he writes: "But I would that you were even as I am [continent/unmarried]."

Yeah, but common sense would say if you were never around, you wouldn't be a real husband of the year candidate

> He saw no problem with this, but condemned anyone strongly who forbids marriage.

Methinks your brush is too broad here... Do you have a passage verifying this condemnation? He does encourage the incontinent Corinthians to marry, because of their incontinence, but would prefer them to be continent, yes??

Yep, sure do have a verse.

1Ti 4:3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.


> The "strong discouragement" is not biblical.

I do not think he tells priest's to marry in any of his epistles... They can BE married, but the setting aside of the entanglements of marriages is part of a Christian's walk in Christ, where we have a natural tendency to put the things of relationship ahead of the things of God... Yet all have their place, yes?

And I agree with you that you do not find an explicit passage in the Bible forbidding ordained priests from marrying in the early Church... They apparently did not think it was all that crucial a Biblical matter, which Bible concerns itself with the Gospels and the Epistles for the flock, and less so for the priesthood of the Church.

But if you are going to be an elder of the Church, you need to be the husband of one wife, etc... So that there would seem to be warrant for marriage, just not the specific warrant for marriage after ordination of the unmarried or the widowed...

One wife would preclude a widower in the priesthood from remarriage, yes?

geo

[Little Cow]

I am not a Catholic, so I ask what scripture do you base the argument that a priest should not, or cannot be married? :hrm:

[Daniel]

Nobody is mentioning the great number of priests who abused young innocent souls. We would have avoided all this if priests had a truly human formation rather than memorising theological stuff. Maybe it's time to state clearly that celibacy and priesthood are not the same thing. One can be called to priesthood even though he is married. Celibacy could become optional. Any comments ?

http://pages.ivillage.com/imhabba63/marriedcatholicpriest

:ahem:

[spl_cadet]

Nobody is mentioning the great number of priests who abused young innocent souls. We would have avoided all this if priests had a truly human formation rather than memorising theological stuff. Maybe it's time to state clearly that celibacy and priesthood are not the same thing. One can be called to priesthood even though he is married. Celibacy could become optional. Any comments ?

http://pages.ivillage.com/imhabba63/marriedcatholicpriest

:ahem:

1. Do not dig up topics that are nearly a year old.
2. The Eastern Catholic Churches (formerly called rites) allow married men to become priests.
3. Celibacy does not cause sexual abuse, especially evidenced as the abuse was mainly homosexual in nature. Furthermore, there is quite a lot of sexual abuse by teachers. Does teaching cause people to sexually abuse others?
4. Just what do you mean when you state that they should have a "truly human formation"?
5. Finally, you are a heretic judging by the articles on your site.

[Agent Yoshi]

Nobody is mentioning the great number of priests who abused young innocent souls.

Or maybe we should just point to Christians, in general?

What's my point : Quit the hypocrisy (or hipocrisy, or however it's spelled). There are "good" Christians, and "bad" Christians, just as there are "good" RCC Priests, and "bad" RCC Priests.

[Daniel]

Celibacy does not cause problems ? Are you kidding? Don't you hear the news? How many abuses by Catholic priests have we heard of ?

Human formation means to speak and study about human problems from the point of view of various sciences including friendships.

If you call me heretic then you're judging me! Do you call yourself christian ?? Anyway I remember Galileo who was condemned.......

Daniel

[Daniel]

You can't simplify the problem by saying that there are good and bad priests. The effect of sexual abuse by a person of authority such as a priest is tremendous. Secondly many times it is conducted on young innocent human beings. Many of them committed suicide because they couldn't handle it. The vow of silence was too much. Just talk to somebody who had such a terrible experience.

Daniel

[spl_cadet]

Celibacy does not cause problems ? Are you kidding? Don't you hear the news? How many abuses by Catholic priests have we heard of ?

How exactly would marriage solve pedophilia and homosexual abuses? Marriage is between a man and a woman after all.


Human formation means to speak and study about human problems from the point of view of various sciences including friendships.

Auf Englisch bitte?


If you call me heretic then you're judging me!

Let me guess: You aren't a huge fan of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?


Do you call yourself christian ??

No, I call myself an orangutan.:ahem:


Anyway I remember Galileo who was condemned.......

For intruding on theological matters and demanding that the Church change it's interpretation of certain verses when he had no theological standing.

[Jezz]

Celibacy does not cause problems ? Are you kidding? Don't you hear the news? How many abuses by Catholic priests have we heard of ?
The Catholic Church is the biggest denomination in the world by a substantial margin. There are more abuses by priests in the Catholic Church because there are more Catholic priests - it is as simple as that.

In Australia, the Catholic and Anglican denominations are about the same size (Catholic slightly larger). We Australians seem to be hearing a lot more about abuse from Anglican priests than we do from Catholic priests. And to my knowledge, all of the Anglican priests that have been implicated in sexual abuse scandals recently were actually married. Which just goes to show that it is not celibacy that is causing these problems - the problem would still exist even if mandatory celibacy were abolished.

You can't simplify the problem by saying that there are good and bad priests. The effect of sexual abuse by a person of authority such as a priest is tremendous. Secondly many times it is conducted on young innocent human beings. Many of them committed suicide because they couldn't handle it. The vow of silence was too much. Just talk to somebody who had such a terrible experience.
This is all irrelevant. Noone disagrees that sexual predation by priests is heinous - especially when conducted on those below the age of consent. The point is, celibacy is not what is causing this - it's simply the fact that certain priests (celibate or otherwise) fall into this temptation.

[Daniel]

There are more abuses by priests in the Catholic Church because there are more Catholic priests - it is as simple as that

Well this is what we call putting a problem under the carpet.

it is not celibacy that is causing these problems - the problem would still exist even if mandatory celibacy were abolished.

How would you know what will happen if we make (not abolish) celibacy optional? Surely you're playing the role of God. This is what makes some people difficult for discussion, because if they don't have facts or solid reasons then they pass on to assumptions!

When you compare with other priests of other religions who happen to be married you'll be missing the point. I don't focus on the sexual problem as such, but rather to the fact that a single person many times is not living a normal life. How can he be a testimony to all? Don't you remember St. Paul who says that one has to prove that he knows how to handle his family before becoming a bishop?

When there is a sexual abuse by a married man, it is a different problem. Mixing them together or comparing them is totally unscientific.

Theologically you have to understand that priesthood is not the same as celibacy. There could be a priesthood without celibacy. There could be other persons who choose celibacy without being ordained priests. In this case too you are confusing issues.

There is another problem which you don't mention. If we start closing parishes because of lack of priests, will you consider married priests at least in that case?

Secondly, how would you explain to ordinary people that priests coming from other religions into the catholic family, are accepted together with their wives and children whilst insisting that catholic priests cannot be married ?

Daniel

[spl_cadet]

How would you know what will happen if we make (not abolish) celibacy optional?

Because he's relating the experience of Anglicans, who are about as close as you can be to being Catholic and still be Protestant?


I don't focus on the sexual problem as such, but rather to the fact that a single person many times is not living a normal life.

Speaking as a single guy: Te futueo et caballum tuum.


Secondly, how would you explain to ordinary people that priests coming from other religions into the catholic family, are accepted together with their wives and children whilst insisting that catholic priests cannot be married ?

Simple: The pope can grant exceptions to the rule.


When there is a sexual abuse by a married man, it is a different problem. Mixing them together or comparing them is totally unscientific.

Why?


Theologically you have to understand that priesthood is not the same as celibacy. There could be a priesthood without celibacy. There could be other persons who choose celibacy without being ordained priests. In this case too you are confusing issues.

No one has said that celibacy=priesthood or that priesthood=celibacy. It is however a very old discipline in the Roman Church and it is not going away.

[Daniel]

Simple: The pope can grant exceptions to the rule.

You see, you think that people nowadays don't have a mind to think! Such a decision confuses the common people to let protestant ministers become catholic priests whilst living a married life! Remember all the emphasis we make for sexual sins...!!!


No one has said that celibacy=priesthood or that priesthood=celibacy.
It is however a very old discipline in the Roman Church and it is not
going away.

Are you sure ?? I don't think so. You already have protestants converts who brought their wives. Now with all the closing parishes we'll be forced to do some changes if the church wishes to survive.

[URL=http://pages.ivillage.com/imhabba63/marriedcatholicpriest[/URL]

[spl_cadet]

Simple: The pope can grant exceptions to the rule.

You see, you think that people nowadays don't have a mind to think! Such a decision confuses the common people to let protestant ministers become catholic priests whilst living a married life! Remember all the emphasis we make for sexual sins...!!!

You're the only one that seems to be confused. Also consider that most Anglican priest converts use the Anglican Use, not the Novus Ordo or TLM.


No one has said that celibacy=priesthood or that priesthood=celibacy.
It is however a very old discipline in the Roman Church and it is not
going away.

Are you sure ?? I don't think so. You already have protestants converts who brought their wives. Now with all the closing parishes we'll be forced to do some changes if the church wishes to survive.

[URL=http://pages.ivillage.com/imhabba63/marriedcatholicpriest[/URL]

So the American Church is a bit screwed. Deal with it, the Church as a whole is not going to change.

[Jude3b]

I'm sure that Christ wanted his priests to be married! Having the support of a loving partner works wonders !! Secondly, the priest will have his theories tested by his very sons. In the family there would be a practical test for all the gospel theories which would ensure that the preacher stays very close to humans. :rofl:

A minor point on your thread: New Testament Pastors are not called "Priests!" Priests is a term that is part of the apostasy of the early church of God that led to Romanism.

You are correct that Christ wants his minsters, who are kings and priests serving Him, to be married: "Marriage is honourable in all..." (Hebrews 13:4)

A bishop (Pastor) then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." (I Tim. 3:2)

[Jezz]

There are more abuses by priests in the Catholic Church because there are more Catholic priests - it is as simple as that

Well this is what we call putting a problem under the carpet.
Not at all. "Putting a problem under the carpet" means to hide the problem. I'm not hiding the problem of priestly abuses.

However, you were trying to use the high number of reported Catholic abuses as some sort of evidence that mandatory celibacy was the cause of this, in an effort to fit your agenda of allowing married priests. This is a misleading use of statistical data. The high number of reports needs to be normalised by working out the rate of abuse incidents compared with the number of priests. Otherwise the comparison is invalid. A Church with a billion members and probably hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of priests is of course going to have more bad priests than a Church with only 10 priests.

it is not celibacy that is causing these problems - the problem would still exist even if mandatory celibacy were abolished.

How would you know what will happen if we make (not abolish) celibacy optional? Surely you're playing the role of God.
I do not know for sure what will happen if you make celibacy optional. I am not God. However, I do know that the Anglican Church is an example of a (which is about as close to Roman Catholic as you can get without being Catholic - with the possible exception of Lutherans) did make celibacy optional, and the sexual abuse problems did not go away! Therefore, I find it unlikely that the RCC problems would go away either if mandatory celibacy were abolished.

You were complaining about me being unscientific - well, this is the way science works. If you want to show that A causes B, then you need to examine a control dataset where A is not present, and see if B disappears/decreases also. The Anglicans form a very useful control dataset, because they are similar in most respects to Catholics - yet differ on the issue of mandatory celibacy. And although the Anglicans abolished mandatory celibacy, they still have just as many problems as the Catholics with sexual abuse (at least in Australia).

This is what makes some people difficult for discussion, because if they don't have facts or solid reasons then they pass on to assumptions!
Oh, the irony in this statement...

Where is your evidence that mandatory celibacy is what is causing priests to abuse? Or is that just something that you have passed on "to assumptions"?

When you compare with other priests of other religions who happen to be married you'll be missing the point. I don't focus on the sexual problem as such, but rather to the fact that a single person many times is not living a normal life. How can he be a testimony to all? Don't you remember St. Paul who says that one has to prove that he knows how to handle his family before becoming a bishop?
It seems that you are in need of a reminder of the comment that you made, to which I replied:

Celibacy does not cause problems ? Are you kidding? Don't you hear the news? How many abuses by Catholic priests have we heard of ?

I'm not missing your point - I simply chose to focus on another one. So, on the whole I agree with you, but the clear implication of the above statement is that you believe that mandatory celibacy of the priesthood is what causes priests to abuse, which I find likely false.

When there is a sexual abuse by a married man, it is a different problem. Mixing them together or comparing them is totally unscientific.
It is the same problem - priests being unable to control their sexual urges. Besides which, I don't think it particularly matters - abuse is abuse, no matter whether the priest who abuses you is married or not...

Theologically you have to understand that priesthood is not the same as celibacy. There could be a priesthood without celibacy. There could be other persons who choose celibacy without being ordained priests. In this case too you are confusing issues.
I'm not confused about this at all. I happen to agree that married men should be allowed to come priests. I chose to focus on your above statement.

There is another problem which you don't mention. If we start closing parishes because of lack of priests, will you consider married priests at least in that case?
Again, I don't mention it for good reason - that was not my aim. My aim was to correct an error in your thinking.

Secondly, how would you explain to ordinary people that priests coming from other religions into the catholic family, are accepted together with their wives and children whilst insisting that catholic priests cannot be married ?
I would agree that this is inconsistent, but again my aim was to correct a specific error in your thinking. I do not care to diverge into other areas of discussion at the moment.

[Maxentius]

Here is my $0.02!

Celebacy does not cause sexual abuse. That is plain to me logically and experiencially.

I think that where the RCC fell down was in placing these abusive men in other congregations where they could hurt other children. The fault was not celabacy but the priests' own sinful desires.

So, what should we do?

If a priest/minister what ever wants to remain celebate he should. For exclusive homosexuals this is the only godly option. If one does not have a family it makes it easier to concentrate on Church/Kingdom work. A family will make one less available to the flock. However, beine married makes a priest more like most of his paritioners--a not insignificant advantage.

In the case of RCC priests, they took a vow. The church authorities would have to release them from their vow for them to marry.

Lutheran clergy are permitted, nay encouraged, to marry.

I do think that the particular perversions experienced in the RCC are due to the requirement for celabacy. By insisting on celebacy they automatically exclude many men who would be priests simply because they want to have a family. In the past there was a great deal of family/societal support for priestly celabacy but that is gone now. These factors, IMO, encourage certain demographic groups to enter the priesthood.

We have had clerical sexual problems in our church, the LC-MS. In all the cases I know of the minister was cashiered.

[George Blaisdell]

So the American Church is a bit screwed. Deal with it, the Church as a whole is not going to change.


I'm with you on ths one, s-c... The US Catholic Church got itself into a big bag of troubles over sexual issues, and now we have all the sexual non-CAtholic arm-chair quarter-backs coming out of the woodwork pointing fingers according to their ideas of correction for the problem. And many see celibacy itself as the problem, seeing it as somehow abnormal - Yet we are called to take up our own cross and follow Christ, denying ourselves, and sexual activities are the very opposite of self-denial. Issues of lust are at all levels in the discipleship of Christ are fundamental - In my Church, anyone who acts on their sexual urges outside of the marriage bed is taken out of communion, and given a service of prayers for purity, and is as well given these prayers to pray daily, in addition to one's regular rule of prayer, and additional prostrations and fasting, normally for a year, before being brought back into communion - It is that serious - And that for one miscreance. Another miscreance, and one is taken out of communion for life, only to receive communion one more time at the end of one's life...

Christ cautioned us to "count the cost"... The kingdom of heaven is set apart from the world, even within the world, upon the earth - And these matters are all subject to economy, yet are the norm - Even dreams that end in 'sexual miscreance' can keep a person out of communion for a while...

So that celibacy, even within the marriage bed, is a goal - And one that becomes easier and easier to attain as one ages! Yet by this strict approach, we keep ourselves normally far from the kinds of difficulties that can ensue when economy is overextended and becomes a license to practice sexual abuses. ONE instance on the part of ANY priest would place that Priest in a monastery or in prison, and in the confessional workings of the Church, there is no way that such matters could be kept from view, and because of the zero tolerance understanding we have, there is every confidence that any report would be taken very seriously and dealt with appropriately...

Yet bad things can happen... Some ex-cons worked their way into a monastery and were abusing boys there, and refused the Bishop when he came to investigate... They were dealt with criminally in the criminal courts of that state. Among criminals, word gets out quickly which places their ciminal practices are safe and which ones not. And the problem the RCC got into was in its efforts to rehabilitate offending priests and avoid scandals, and the word got out, and the problem grew over a long period of time...

I hope and pray that there is a thorough house-cleaning going on right now in the confessionals of the priests of the RCC, and that this whole matter can be not only laid to rest, but can be utilized as a corrective and preventive for any future problems.

And yes, for my tuppence, a married priesthood is a good thing, and so is an unmarried one - In Orthodoxy, there is room for both in the same parish, and they concelebrate together without so much as a nanosecond of a second thought whatsoever...

The good thing about scandal is its wonderful capacity for the engenderment of genuine humility... Being humbled by scandal is an inccalculable benefit to a servant of God... So few criminals are humbled by their convictions in criminal court - Not even child rapists and murderers - We do not understand the value of shame... The old expression "Have you no shame?!?" is pretty much lost amidst the wash of secular self-gratification that is swamping the US these days...

Arsenios