Catholic bishops urged to review celibacy rules amid shortage of priests in the UK - Sensationalist Headlines

[quote]Catholic bishops in England and Wales are facing a fresh call for a national commission on the ordination of married men amid mounting concern that the church’s celibacy requirement is contributing to a shortage of priests. The call for a review of celibacy as a condition of priesthood comes after [B]Pope Francis signalled last month he was open to the possibility of ordaining married men under specific conditions.[/B] The issue is expected to raised at a synod next year on vocation. The Movement for Married Clergy (MMaC) is renewing its call for a national commission of bishops, clergy and laity to discuss ways of tackling the shortage of priests. “We’re asking bishops to recognise the issue and examine possible solutions in good faith,” said the MMaC secretary, Chris McDonnell. A recent editorial in the Catholic Times endorsed the call. “What has the church got to lose by establishing such a commission? Or perhaps more importantly, the focus should concentrate on what the church has to gain from such a move,” it said. According to Catholic church figures, [B]25 men entered training for the diocesan priesthood in 2016 for England and Wales compared with more than 150 in 1985[/B], although the pace of decline has slowed in recent years.[/quote] [url]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/29/catholic-bishops-pressed-to-review-celibacy-rules-shortage-of-priests[/url]

tbh catholics are the odd church out, pretty much every protestant church allows and pretty much encourages their leaders to have families.

[QUOTE=Sableye;52171277]tbh catholics are the odd church out, pretty much every protestant church allows and pretty much encourages their leaders to have families.[/QUOTE] Probably because there's absolutely zero Biblical reasons to force church leaders to be celibate. Even Peter, the so called first pope, was married in the Bible. Of course, there's also no Biblical reasons to have priests. So I'm not sure if that fact is very important.

It explicitly states in the article that celibacy is church discipline, not church doctrine.

[QUOTE=Sableye;52171277]tbh catholics are the odd church out, pretty much every protestant church allows and pretty much encourages their leaders to have families.[/QUOTE] Well the Protestants were more about returning the control of religion to the average people, who more often than not had close families/were already married. The old Catholic church was largely composed of men who had been groomed for a position in the church since they wouldn't get jack when inheritances came up.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52171297]It explicitly states in the article that celibacy is church discipline, not church doctrine.[/QUOTE] How does that change anything? Was Peter not disciplined?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52171308]How does that change anything? Was Peter not disciplined?[/QUOTE] It means it's something the church decided because reasons other than biblical reasons. IIRC, the reason this was implemented was to prevent priest and bishop positions from becoming de facto hereditary. [editline]30th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=CP-26;52171307]Well the Protestants were more about returning the control of religion to the average people, who more often than not had close families/were already married. The old Catholic church was largely composed of men who had been groomed for a position in the church since they wouldn't get jack when inheritances came up.[/QUOTE] Not to mention it was popular with some monarchies to be in charge of their country 100% rather than sharing power with Rome.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52171312]It means it's something the church decided because reasons other than biblical reasons.[/QUOTE] It's not just not in the Bible. It's contradictory to the Bible. Paul, the one who makes the strongest positive statements of celibacy in the Bible, calls for all people who lust after women to get married (As I'm sure the vast majority of Catholic priests, along with all men, do). He also writes to Timothy that all leaders should be husband of one wife, assuming that they were married.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52171323]It's not just not in the Bible. It's contradictory to the Bible. Paul, the one who makes the strongest positive statements of celibacy in the Bible, calls for all people who lust after women to get married (As I'm sure the vast majority of Catholic priests, along with all men, do). He also writes to Timothy that all leaders should be husband of one wife, assuming that they were married.[/QUOTE] If you read the article, you would read that priests did marry up until the 12th century. But the problem of children of priests became an issue. Also, Lutheran or Anglican priests whom are married and then convert to Catholicism may remain as priests, making them in effect catholic married priests.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52171348]If you read the article, you would read that priests did marry up until the 12th century. But the problem of children of priests became an issue. Also, Lutheran or Anglican priests whom are married and then convert to Catholicism may remain as priests, making them in effect catholic married priests.[/QUOTE] Are we really going to pretend that the church lets priests get married when they want? The problem is that the church's view is totally inconsistent. They call it a "discipline," but essentially all priests are forced to do it. They say it's about having worries about children, but that's not a current problem. So it should be irrelevant. Etc.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52171398]Are we really going to pretend that the church lets priests get married when they want? The problem is that the church's view is totally inconsistent. They call it a "discipline," but essentially all priests are forced to do it. They say it's about having worries about children, but that's not a current problem. So it should be irrelevant. Etc.[/QUOTE] Well it's not really forcing priests to do it when they're not forcing them to be priests in the first place. Else the UK wouldn't have a priest shortage to begin with and we wouldn't be having this discussion in this thread. And obviously it is irrelevant today - thus the article in the OP.

[QUOTE=Sableye;52171277]tbh catholics are the odd church out, pretty much every protestant church allows and pretty much encourages their leaders to have families.[/QUOTE] And it's only American Roman Catholics. Plenty of the easterners have married priests, though there's less in the US, probably to make themselves look similar to the Romans while dealing with racism against Eastern European immigrnats.

[QUOTE=Luni;52171431]And it's only American Roman Catholics. Plenty of the easterners have married priests, though there's less in the US, probably to make themselves look similar to the Romans while dealing with racism against Eastern European immigrnats.[/QUOTE] Are you talking about Eastern Orthodox Church or Roman Catholics from eastern parts of the world? If it's the former, IIRC the Orthodox Church only allows priests to be married if they are already so before their ordination. If they are single and ordained, they are not allowed to marry.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52171421]Well it's not really forcing priests to do it when they're not forcing them to be priests in the first place. Else the UK wouldn't have a priest shortage to begin with and we wouldn't be having this discussion in this thread. And obviously it is irrelevant today - thus the article in the OP.[/QUOTE] So can a person who's already a priest go get married and stay a priest? No, of course not. So, yes, they are forcing them to stay celibate. So the reason for celibacy is now irrelevant, yet the church still keeps it? That makes no sense whatsoever. I would argue that the reason comes from the fact that the church doesn't have celibacy because they were trying to solve issues surrounding children of priests. The modern Catholic church attempts to make Biblical arguments based on what Paul said about marriage. It also appeals to the early ascetic Christians who rose up hundreds of years after the death of Jesus as church tradition.

This is literally an article talking about the church possibly changing their stance on it, what more do you want?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52171492]This is literally an article talking about the church possibly changing their stance on it, what more do you want?[/QUOTE] A couple articles, and a small liberal component of the church, don't really mean much. There are absolutely massive portions of the church who would be horrified if it were changed. It's so hard to address any theological, or any type, of issue with the Catholic church because on one hand they claim that tradition is super important and authoritative, but on the other hand, they can just change it tomorrow like it never happened. Here are the words of Pope Paul VI in 1967 in the conclusion of the [I]Sacerdotalis Caelibatus[/I], a text on the celibacy of marriage: "Venerable brothers, pastors of God's flock throughout the world, and dearly beloved priests, Our sons and brothers: as We come to the end of this letter which We have addressed to you, We invite you, with a soul responsive to Christ's great love, to turn your eyes and heart with renewed confidence and filial hope to the most loving Mother of Jesus and Mother of the Church, and to invoke for the Catholic priesthood her powerful and maternal intercession. In her the People of God admire and venerate the image of the Church, and model of faith, charity and perfect union with Him. May Mary Virgin and Mother obtain for the Church, which also is hailed as virgin and mother, to rejoice always, though with due humility, in the faithfulness of her priests to the sublime gift of holy virginity they have received, and to see it flourishing and appreciated ever more and more in every walk of life, so that the army of those who "follow the divine Lamb wherever He goes'' may increase throughout the earth." Getting rid of celibacy now would mean that all the statements like this from past Popes were just plain nonsense and wrongheaded. What, did priests all of a sudden not get the sublime gift of holy virginity in the late 2010s?

[quote]1 Corinthians 7:27-28 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this."[/quote] [quote]1 Corinthians 7:33-34 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife 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.[/quote] [quote]1 Corinthians 7:38 "So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better."[/quote] It's okay to be married. But for someone who intends to focus their life for the church are better off without. My Presbyterian minister is unmarried and has stated that he has no intention of finding a wife. Is he really any less of a pastor because of this? No. Neither are Catholic priests.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52171693]It's okay to be married. But for someone who intends to focus their life for the church are better off without. My Presbyterian minister is unmarried and has stated that he has no intention of finding a wife. Is he really any less of a pastor because of this? No. Neither are Catholic priests.[/QUOTE] I'm not arguing that the Bible calls a very small number of gifted people to celibacy. I'm arguing that the Catholic church's enforcement of celibacy on church leaders is contradictory to the Bible. Even the verses you quoted are prefaced with the statement: "8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." We also know that Paul didn't mention celibacy at all in his letters to Timothy that were specifically about church leadership, with sections on selecting leaders for the church. So it couldn't have been that big of a deal. Here are the requirements given in 1 Timothy 3: "3 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach." There's nothing about celibacy.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52172515]I'm not arguing that the Bible calls a very small number of gifted people to celibacy. I'm arguing that the Catholic church's enforcement of celibacy on church leaders is contradictory to the Bible.[/quote] I literally provided verses that say spiritually it's better off not being married but still okay if you are. [QUOTE=sgman91;52172515]Even the verses you quoted are prefaced with the statement: "8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."[/quote] Would imply priests have no self-control, and while a few don't, the majority do and live their lives accordingly. [QUOTE=sgman91;52172515]We also know that Paul didn't mention celibacy at all in his letters to Timothy that were specifically about church leadership, with sections on selecting leaders for the church. So it couldn't have been that big of a deal. Here are the requirements given in 1 Timothy 3: "3 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach." There's nothing about celibacy.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure that passage is simply saying that the 'overseer' must be a good and righteous man. It does not say "everyone [I]must[/I] marry". Are you just going to outright ignore the passages I posted simply because in Timothy they do not mention it?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52172555]I literally provided verses that say spiritually it's better off not being married but still okay if you are. Would imply priests have no self-control, and while a few don't, the majority do and live their lives accordingly. Pretty sure that passage is simply saying that the 'overseer' must be a good and righteous man. It does not say "everyone [I]must[/I] marry". Are you just going to outright ignore the passages I posted simply because in Timothy they do not mention it?[/QUOTE] I'm not skipping over anything. Paul says that if you don't burn with passion, then he suggests that you don't get married because it lets you focus on the things of God. Note that when he says "self-control" he's not talking about having self-control in not having sex. He's talking about having so much self-control that you don't even burn with passion for sex. I can't possibly see any argument for saying that the majority of Catholic priests never burn with passion for sex. Richard Spite, a former Benedictine Monk, stated in his book [I]Celibacy in Crisis[/I]: "I estimate that at any one time 50 percent of priests are practicing celibacy." This was based on direct interviews of around 1,500 Catholic priests. What Paul doesn't say is that church leaders ought to not get married or that it should be taken into consideration when selecting church leaders, both things that the Catholic church teaches. [editline]1st May 2017[/editline] Also note that I never claimed that Paul said overseers must be married. I'm simply showing that Paul didn't mention celibacy to Timothy as something to take into account when selecting church leaders.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52171287]Probably because there's absolutely zero Biblical reasons to force church leaders to be celibate. Even Peter, the so called first pope, was married in the Bible. Of course, there's also no Biblical reasons to have priests. So I'm not sure if that fact is very important.[/QUOTE] As a former Catholic, I can tell you the Catholic church is very... strange. In many ways they're incredibly progressive - they don't dispute evolution, don't pretend the Earth is only a few thousand years old like Protestants, especially in the United States, do, and generally embrace scientific discovery in these days. And yet, no female priests, the ridiculous celibacy rule, and their reluctance as an institution to investigate sexual abuse within their ranks that comes as an obvious result of their celibacy rule.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52172603] Also note that I never claimed that Paul said overseers must be married. I'm simply showing that Paul didn't mention celibacy to Timothy as something to take into account when selecting church leaders.[/QUOTE] He also didn't mention what type of clothes they wear when selecting church leaders. Or the color of their hair. Or if they are short or tall. What exactly are you trying to prove with pointing out something not mentioned?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52171441]Are you talking about Eastern Orthodox Church or Roman Catholics from eastern parts of the world? If it's the former, IIRC the Orthodox Church only allows priests to be married if they are already so before their ordination. If they are single and ordained, they are not allowed to marry.[/QUOTE] My Uncle (by marriage) is an Orthodox Priest, not sure if they got married pre or post Ordainment though.

[QUOTE=archangel125;52172727]As a former Catholic, I can tell you the Catholic church is very... strange. In many ways they're incredibly progressive - they don't dispute evolution, don't pretend the Earth is only a few thousand years old like Protestants, especially in the United States, do, and generally embrace scientific discovery in these days.[/quote] the church has generally supported or been neutral at worst towards scientific discoveries in general. a lot of priests and monks did work on genetics, astronomy, geology, and numerous other contributions here and there. a churchman was one of the first to come up with the idea that the earth went around the sun after all [quote]And yet, no female priests, the ridiculous celibacy rule, and their reluctance as an institution to investigate sexual abuse within their ranks that comes as an obvious result of their celibacy rule.[/QUOTE] actually paedophilia and sexual abuse within the catholic church is lower than it is amongst the general population - the main issue is that it's often covered up and done by people in a position of authority. celibacy doesn't cause people to become sexual abusers.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52172872]the church has generally supported or been neutral at worst towards scientific discoveries in general. a lot of priests and monks did work on genetics, astronomy, geology, and numerous other contributions here and there. [B]a churchman was one of the first to come up with the idea that the earth went around the sun after all [/B] actually paedophilia and sexual abuse within the catholic church is lower than it is amongst the general population - the main issue is that it's often covered up and done by people in a position of authority. celibacy doesn't cause people to become sexual abusers.[/QUOTE] If you're talking about Bruno Giordano, he *was* burned at the stake for that.

[QUOTE=archangel125;52176726]If you're talking about Bruno Giordano, he *was* burned at the stake for that.[/QUOTE] His wiki says he was executed for believing in multiple words with multiple people and other religious related stuff, but nothing about the earth going around the sun? Edit: Execution-wise, I mean. Not that he didn't believe the earth revolved around the sun.

[QUOTE=archangel125;52176726]If you're talking about Bruno Giordano, he *was* burned at the stake for that.[/QUOTE] i'm talking about mikołaj kopernik, and bruno wasn't executed for it i can't think of any instances off the top of my head where the church executed (or threatened to execute) somebody for babbling about heliocentrism

Understandable, I think the whole 'celibacy' requirement for priests was brought in mainly because higher ranking clergymen kept trying to give out positions to their children so this was brought in to stop them from doing so. Of course, this only continued in the form of clergymen giving out positions to their 'nephews' and 'nieces' (who could easily be unacknowledged bastard children) hence the term nepotism. Don't think that would be as much of a problem in this day and age, at least it should be more easily regulated - the catholic church could use modernisation after all.

[QUOTE=GordonZombie;52177637]Understandable, I think the whole 'celibacy' requirement for priests was brought in mainly because higher ranking clergymen kept trying to give out positions to their children so this was brought in to stop them from doing so. Of course, this only continued in the form of clergymen giving out positions to their 'nephews' and 'nieces' (who could easily be unacknowledged bastard children) hence the term nepotism. Don't think that would be as much of a problem in this day and age, at least it should be more easily regulated - the catholic church could use modernisation after all.[/QUOTE] depends on what one means by "modernisation"

[QUOTE=GordonZombie;52177637]Understandable, I think the whole 'celibacy' requirement for priests was brought in mainly because higher ranking clergymen kept trying to give out positions to their children so this was brought in to stop them from doing so. Of course, this only continued in the form of clergymen giving out positions to their 'nephews' and 'nieces' (who could easily be unacknowledged bastard children) hence the term nepotism. Don't think that would be as much of a problem in this day and age, at least it should be more easily regulated - the catholic church could use modernisation after all.[/QUOTE] I would imagine when it comes to regulations that the Catholic Church would have been the inventor of "modernization".