Foxy,
Not being catholic or religous in any way, I have stayed out of this debate. But the thought occured to me that, from a purely practical view, the existance of celibate priests means less competition for the available girls. Do you know how many Catholic clergy there is in Aus?

Dear Banjo,

I don't think you've got much to worry
about. It's a question of chemistry
when you're choosing a mate - isn't it?
And I imagine you'd have no problems
in that department whatsoever.

Besides, not every man wants to marry
nowadays, priests are no exception.
I'm simply raising the question of
giving them a choice.

I see a massive inconsistency in the
fact that Catholicism has accepted convert married
clergy into its ministry, particularly from the
Anglican and Lutheran churches in Germany,
England, the USA, Canada, Australia and other
countries, ordaining them while refusing to accept
the ministry of experienced Catholic priests who
want to marry, forcing them to leave.

With this inconsistency I feel that priests
should no longer feel obliged to be celibate.
It should be a matter of choice.

As for the number of priests - I've given
the stats in my earlier post.
Worldwide I think there's over 400,000.

All The Best,

StG,

Before you fire something like that off please re-read what Runner typed and have a think about it.

Between you and I not very many females were involved in priestly abuse cases. Your last sentence makes me wonder if you have something you need to share and I'd love to discuss it but I don't think it would be productive in this forum. It might be something you need to address in the "real world" but if you need to talk about it please find someone or let me help you to do so.

Foxy,

"...are you willing to read the book by Paul Collins?"

I'm worried it might be like pulling teeth but I've ordered it online.

"They should never have publicly disagreed with papal teaching,
or said anything radical, or upset too many people, have no
medical or psychological problems...."

Either Geoffrey Robinson was good at hiding things or the net is extremely wider than that. Although Bishop Robinson is rejected even by Australian Bishops there are a number of other Australian Bishops who don't fall within those narrow criteria albeit not quite as extremely. I suspect Collins is exagerating.

"And they do this in face of the fact that the vast majority of Jesus' apostles and disciples were married, including the first pope, Saint Peter, as were by far the greater number of priests and bishops in the first 1100 years of the church's existence."

I presume you have been following the discussion so I'll just target his assertion about the apostles. Is it just me or is that how you read it the first time? The term disciples applied to anyone who followed him to learn didn't it? (Luke 6:17) Until he told them that they would need to eat his flesh he had a huge crowd. If most of his apostles (as it read to me at first reading) were married it could be significant but if the big crowd following were married (very few of whom became apostles/pastors) it has little relevance. Mr Collins should be more careful to avoid confusion.

Celibacy is not the same thing as sexual continence.

In a religious sense, Celibate means “renouncing marriage”. Sexual Continence means refraining from any form of sexual intercourse and chaste means conforming to sexual morality.

A married man having sex with his wife is therefore chaste, but is not celibate or continent.

An unmarried man having sex with anyone can still be celibate, but is neither continent nor chaste.

These are the factors that changed over time in the Church. Abstinence was encouraged "before performing Mass" for example.

It was still permissible for clergy have (and retain) wives and children before becoming ordained.

The Council of Elvira in the 4th century forbade sexual relations with wives but did not demand celibacy.

This was progressively banned and eventually all existing marriages officially not recognised and dissolved by the Church.
(In 1123 - "Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage. We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved, and that the persons be condemned to do penance." )

The tradition of clerical continence developed into a practice of clerical celibacy (ordaining only unmarried men) from the eleventh century onward among Latin Rite Catholics and became a formal part of canon law as late as 1917.

Celibacy for priests is a discipline in the Roman Catholic Church, not a doctrine, and can be changed at any time.

"Between you and I not very many females were involved in priestly abuse cases."

Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 24 July 2008 12:50:49 PM

Tell that to the females it has happened to.

StG,

Not after putting my foot in my mouth like that.

Rache,

That is correct and the definitions were good as that hasn't been done before in here. For the sake of pendanticism I note that the Council of Elvira was not an ecumenical council and didn't apply everywhere. Universal application hasn't been established with documentary evidence until later that century.