WASHINGTON (AP) - Most Americans - Catholics and non-Catholics alike - want the next pope to allow priests to marry and women to join the priesthood, a major break from church rules and the judgment of Pope John Paul II, according to an Associated Press poll.
The charismatic pontiff was held in high regard by a majority of Americans and most Catholics, with many suggesting that John Paul will be remembered as one of the greatest popes. For many, the man who led the church for 26 years is the only pope they know.
But affection for John Paul has hardly eliminated the cultural divisions between the United States and the Vatican over the ordination of women, celibacy for priests and the role of lay people in the church.
I don’t really care whether they let priests marry or not, I mean it’s part of the job description so they know what they’re getting into from the get-go I assume.
I do think women should at least be given a shot at it though. There were female priests in the early church, and they certainly didn’t destroy the universe. Of course, early priests also could marry. shrugs
Also, I don’t get what the big hairy deal is with using birth control within marriage. The only other alternative for some people, for whom a pregnancy would mean serious health threat or simply a child that can’t be provided for, is abstinance. You can guess how long a marriage in THAT situation would last.
Good thing even most Catholics don’t put much stock in that edict anyway, but still…
The celibate priesthood is a relic from medieval power-politics. It is not an intrinsic part of the Catholic faith. JUst because something was done in the year 1200 does not mean it is appropriate for the year 2005.
There are far more wise people on this subject than me, including yourself, and the discussion is taking place on the Pope Lists thread. I simply do not have an issue with priests not being able to marry, as TelegramSam said, it is their decision to become a priest. As for women in the priesthood, I’m honestly not quite sure where I come down on that one. But my usual, admittedly poor, response to people who believe that Catholicism should “get with it”/“back to it” is “There are actually quite a few people who believe the same thing… they’re called Protestants.”
A radio commentator I heard today said, “Going into a Catholic Church and complaining about its teachings is like going into a hardware store and complaining about all the hammers.”
As a woman and a conservative Catholic I stand by the Church’s traditions…it’s part of the Church’s dogma…you can’t change something just to be more modern and to please everyone.
A woman plays a certain role in the Church as do men and I see no problem with it at all. It doesn’t offend me or anything. This was how it came to be. Peter was appointed by Jesus to become the first Pope and he happens to be a man.
I pray that the Holy Spirit will see to it that a proper Pope will be chosen that will follow in Pope John Paul II’s footsteps. This is MY hope. Not trying to change other’s opinions because i don’t want to start a ‘war’ or anything.
It’ll be hard to find someone like Pope John Paul II, though.
Correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure someone will) but I seem to remember reading that there are a small number of married priests. These are men who were already married when they felt called to the priesthood. I believe they have to get a special dispensation or something.
I have Catholic friends who, before getting married, had to attend pre-marital classes with their local priest. The value of marital advice from someone who has no experience in the field seems questionable.
I’ve attended Church of England services ministered by lady vicars, and I must say I thought they were just as good as male ones, and frequently sweeter tempered.
At least after all that time listening to confession they must have some idea where the mistakes are getting made.
Having been raised until the age of 15 as a Salvationist I was always used to the corps commanding officers being a husband and wife team so the idea of women preachers just seems normal to me. I’ve known good and bad vicars of both sexes in the Church of England and also known some Roman Catholic priests who were among the most worldly wise men I’ve met.
Of course I’m now a morris man, just can’t seem to shake that concertina connection.
Fundamentalist attacks on priestly celibacy come in a number of different forms—not all compatible with one another. There is almost no other subject about which so many different confusions exist.
The first and most basic confusion is thinking of priestly celibacy as a dogma or doctrine—a central and irreformable part of the faith, believed by Catholics to come from Jesus and the apostles. Thus some Fundamentalists make a great deal of a biblical reference to Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:30), apparently supposing that, if Catholics only knew that Peter had been married, they would be unable to regard him as the first pope. Again, Fundamentalist time lines of “Catholic inventions” (a popular literary form) assign “mandatory priestly celibacy” to this or that year in Church history, as if prior to this requirement the Church could not have been Catholic.
These Fundamentalists are often surprised to learn that even today celibacy is not the rule for all Catholic priests. > In fact, for Eastern Rite Catholics, married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians. >
Even in the Eastern churches, though, there have always been some restrictions on marriage and ordination. Although married men may become priests, unmarried priests may not marry, and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry. Moreover, there is an ancient Eastern discipline of choosing bishops from the ranks of the celibate monks, so their bishops are all unmarried.
The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.
As these variations and exceptions indicate, priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule. The fact that Peter was married is no more contrary to the Catholic faith than the fact that the pastor of the nearest Maronite Catholic church is married.
Yes, that’s true. Often they are Anglicans or Orthodox priests who converted to Catholicism and were allowed to pursue Holy Orders despite the fact that they are already married. They are not allowed to remarry should their wives die, however.
I’ve seen what’s happened in the Episcopal Church since women’s ordination was essentially forced through, and it’s not pretty. My church has just finished going through hell at the hands of a woman who was “fast tracked” through the discernment and ordination process to “bring numbers up,” and we’re not the only ones…in fact, in our area alone, three parishes have nearly been driven to ruin by the same situation in the past 10 years. Ordination is a calling, not a right. While I think it’s possible that some women could be called to the priesthood, I think the Church does well to err on the side of conservativism…“affirmative action” may work in the boardroom, but it has no place in the pulpit.
Redwolf - I would never condone shoving anybody into the priesthood for the sake of numbers. That’s completely stupid.
The problem is that even in churches that have entirely-male priests and pastors, a lot of them are “fast-tracked” through these days do to a general shortage of people serving in the church. I don’t think it’s a good thing in the slightest. Some of these people (male and female alike) are emotionally and mentally unfit to lead anybody. They’re ordained mainly because the churches are desperate to get them. It’s a shame, really.
As far as to whether women are just naturally unfit or whatever, I’ll say that I’ve been to two churches, one episcopalian and one methodist, led by women. One did an absolutely awful job and the church ended up closing, the other did a rather good job and smoothed out a lot of messes left by the previous (male) pastor. They couldn’t have been more different.
I believe the Church of England synod is trying to change the rules about getting rid of vicars. They can get rid of them for gross misconduct etc. but not for being incompetent at the job.
BTW the Church of England is another example of a catholic church where the clergy are allowed to be married.
“Catholic” in what sense? did you use a lower-case “c” on purpose?
The eastern churches listed in the article above are in full union with Rome - aside from cultural and ogaizational differences, they are part of the same human institution, the Catholic Church. Episcopalians/Anglicans are entirely independent, even if their customs and doctrines are very similar.
the celebacy thing is from medieval abuse. it was an administrative decision-of-sorts because priests were putting a priority on accumulation of property so they could pass something along to their families. This rule eliminated that situation. As it only became a problem to the degree it was in the Latin Rite areas of the West, the Eastern Rite (still totally the Catholic Church under authority of the Pope) priests can still marry.
that is a rule that could possibly change, but I don’t think it will and for a very simple reason: the Church’s stance is that the reason for changing it would be to alleviate the shortage of new priests. they feel that the protestant denominations that made that change ostensibly for that same reason haven’t seen much of an improvement, and so it wouldn’t accomplish the goal.
as far as women - there were women who were leaders in the early Church, but not “priests” as we know priests today. the primary function of a “priest” is the sacrifice of the Mass, in which there’s a whole slew of symbolism with regards to the role of Jesus, bride and bridegroom &c &c, precluding a woman performing that particular role. There is nothing prohibiting women from becoming leaders, exemplary examples, saints or religious clergy (nuns and others). There are equvalent male clerical roles who also cannot consecrate at a Mass or Absolve or other things specific to priests.
It’s been oversimplified lately to simply saying, “Jesus picked the first priests (actually the first bishops, who are priests as well) in the apostles and none of them were women.” The frequent response to that is that women were marginalized in the society etc, but Jesus never flinched at reaching out and assigning important tasks to those society rejected. He didn’t play the politic game and so if he wanted women in the role he would have chosen one or more, regardless of what society thought about it. It is frequently forgotten that the Church recognizes the special role of women in being the first to see and announce the Resurrection, as well as being courageous enough to go out to the tomb in the first place while the apostles were locked up hiding.
as far as changes on birth control, that is not likely either as the Church’s stance is that non-barrier methods such as the pill can cause unintended (or intended in the case of RU486) abortions as the zygote doesn’t attach itself to the uterine wall for two to four days but is an individual life from conception in the fallopian tube - purposely deny it a place to land and, well, you do the math. It discourages barrier methods (condoms etc) because it “engenders a contraceptive mentality” making the other kind more socially acceptable and at the very least represents an attempt to “foil” God’s plan for whatever person would have developed from the prevented conception.
Being Catholic my family and I speak on the two subjects of 1) priest marrying and 2) female priests.
Heres my take for what its worth.
I do see the the Vatican opening up the doors to allow priests to marry and I feel this way only because of the priest shortage and that this has been a problem for sometime. It actually drives men from the priesthood because they feel they can serve the church to full capacity and marry.
I don’t see a female becoming a priest anytime soon, and to be honest I support having only men as priests. Pope John Paul II was totally against the ideal and stood firmly on his convictions. I like many hope that the new Pope does the same in regards to this issue.
