| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Why can't a former vicar not become a Catholic bishop if he has a wife?; He can be a priest | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Monday, 9. July 2012, 20:34 (461 Views) | |
| Mairtin | Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 09:24 Post #16 |
|
No, Eileenanne, it's based on extensive reading on the subject. Most of the objections I have seen are from hardline Traditionalists who attack just about everything that has happened in the Church over the last 50 years or more; feel free to point me to any source that suggests significant opposition in the mainstream Church. Edited by Mairtin, Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 09:27.
|
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 13:40 Post #17 |
![]()
|
Mairtin you claim to speak for the majority but no matter what you have read or consider to be the popular mood the reality is that there is great resistance to Married deacons in England let alone married priests. Furthermore the church is not confined to Northern Europe, in many parts of the States and other parts of the world the acceptance of married clergy is far from accepted by any form of majority, though their may be a noisy minority. Small steps is the way ahead, slow and steady will win the race, go dashing off like the hare and you will cause greater distress and Schism. As is the case with many things the majority tend to remain silent because they have nothing to prove or shout about. I have witnessed a priest being hounded out of a parish because the parishioners would not accept a married priest and this was not an isolated incident and it occurred in a parish where the majority of the congregation were well educated and reasonably well heeled. 18 years on a married deacon is fulfilling a very valuable ministry within that same parish, and it might now be possible to place a married priest in there but my friends suggest that it is still to early for people to accept the idea. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 14:41 Post #18 |
|
I most certainly do NOT make any such claim nor, indeed, have I ever made any claim to speak on behalf of anybody except myself. When I refer to the majority of Catholics, I am simply stating what I see from my reading and discussion and am more than happy to be corrected with factual information.
Really? I'd like to know what you base that on seeing that a Gallup poll in the States in 2005 found that 63% of Catholics believe that priests should be allowed to marry with only 36% against the idea. These weren't ultra-liberal-modernists, by the way - 88% of them thought that John Paul II would go down as the greatest or one of the greatest popes in history and only 34% wanted him to be succeeded by a more liberal pope. Edited by Mairtin, Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 14:43.
|
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 15:48 Post #19 |
![]()
Administrator
|
How does Gallup define a Catholic? I know plenty of people who say they are Church of England, and know nothing about that Church's teachings. Living close to me there are three aged between late fifties and mid eighties, who call themselves Catholics, then tell me why they gave up on the Catholic Church when they were teenagers. If a Gallup polster asked their religion they would say RC. That opinion was held by people who knew a lot about Pope John Paul II, and by many in and out of the Catholic Church who knew he travelled, and had a nice smile, he was to them a superstar, celebrity, popular guy, even if they knew little or nothing about his policies, teachings and practises. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| tomais | Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 17:17 Post #20 |
|
Interesting that ao many things do not change. A real ding dong here over marriage,sex. Global morality-Christians being slaughtered-anti christianity on our own door steps and belief plus sex rules OK! In Knoxian Edinburgh it is centred on Same sex marage; deaconesses and celibacy doe not feature at all; see Scottish catholic Observer. Unless I stir it! Why not a Gallop poll here? An Independant Poll? Ah of course we are independant with our own Cardinal.Good |
![]() |
|
| Home in Rome | Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 22:06 Post #21 |
|
It was stated at the time Anglicanorum Coetibus was promulgated, that the decision not to allow maried bishops was based on closer ecumenical link to Orthodxy and not wanting to to put further obstacles on the road to unity. The fact that celibate episcopate is one of discipline and not doctrine is clear from New Testament evidence - the first Pope was a married man, though it has been argued that since there is no direct reference to his wife in the New Testament, maybe he was a widower at the time of his call as an apostle. References in the Pastoral Epistles to married bishops or 'overseers' - episcope do point to continuing practice of ordaining married men as bishops with the marriage still subsisting, mentioning wives and children, and St Hilary of Poitiers in the fourth century was married with a child when elected bishop. As for Mgr Graham Leonard, he did float the idea of a Personal Prelature and he found some support from CDF and then Prefect, Cardinal Ratzinger, but it was firmly ruled out by the Episcopal Conference of E&W, much to the disappointment of the late Cardinal Hume, as was the US-style Pastoral Provision for Anglican use parishes. While not wanting to scupper cordial relations with the Church of England was mentioned as the main reason at that time, many bishops felt it was not appropriate for groups of former Anglicans to have a distinct existence within the Catholic Church of E&W. Mgr Leonard was married at the time of his death. It needed the publication in 2009, some forteen years later under Pope Benedict of the Apostolic Constitution, setting up Personal Ordinariate as a juridical body independent of the local episcopate and subject directly to the Holy See, but envisaging collaborative relations with the dioceses in which the Ordinariate operates. Edited by Home in Rome, Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 22:11.
|
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 22:42 Post #22 |
|
Whether or not 1 Cor 9:4-5 (see post #5 above) is a direct or an indirect reference to Peter's wife, it seems pretty clear. So, presumably he was married when called or remarried after he was called.. |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 22:51 Post #23 |
|
Deleted User
|
Penfold, my personal experience in this diocese does not support your statement that there is massive resistance to married deacons .My own parish has had two from our own numbers and they were very well received and respected, One of them, now sadly deceased, baptised my granddaughter and made a great job of it in a homily which drew on his experience as a married man and on family life, It struck home to all there including the non-catholics and I don't think a celibate could have spoken so effectively. john |
|
|
| Emee | Wednesday, 11. July 2012, 00:26 Post #24 |
|
Yes I was going to quote St Paul bemoaning that he and his team were not married like St Peter also Bernard, as being a direct reference to St Peter being married at the time of his ministry. You beat me to it! :) |
![]() |
|
| Home in Rome | Wednesday, 11. July 2012, 01:31 Post #25 |
|
The interpretation of that verse in 1 Cor 9 is disputed. The Greek original uses the word gunaika, which can mean wife but it's a normal word for a woman. Jesus according to John even used it to address his mother. So that passage may only be referring to the fact that apostles were, as we know, often accompanied by other female followers, while Paul and Barnabas weren't. We know Peter was (at one time?) married from the healing of his mother-in-law, but this passage can't be read as a direct reference to his wife or those of other apostles. |
![]() |
|
| garfield | Wednesday, 11. July 2012, 08:07 Post #26 |
|
I suppose that the female followers would have included the wives and/or mothers of those apostles who were married, and those wives probably looked after the other women in the group. Paul and Barnabas as presumably un-married men making long and difficult journeys between cities and countries would have been unable to properly protect or provide for any women travelling with them. |
![]() |
|
| Eileenanne | Wednesday, 11. July 2012, 09:15 Post #27 |
|
Mairtin, Huge numbers of Catholics live in places where Gallup never ventures. Polls in the supposedly sophisticated West are not necessarily indicative of the views of the majority of Catholics. Eileenanne |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 11. July 2012, 09:49 Post #28 |
|
I don't actually know but the Catholic Church itself regards anyone baptised as a Catholic to be a Catholic for the rest of their life unless they formally renounce their Catholicism so I'd think it wouldn't be unreasonable of Gallup to do the same. The poll in question does actually give figures for all Catholics and Catholics who attend church weekly - still a majority though a smaller one in regard to removing compulsory celibacy - but I'm not sure that is a particularly useful distinction. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Wednesday, 11. July 2012, 09:55 Post #29 |
|
I quoted this particular poll because Penfold specifically said that there was far from a majority in the USA.
Every poll I know of - USA, Britain, Ireland an Italy (priests) spring to mind offhand - shows a majority in favour of removing compulsory celibacy. If you have any evidence to suggest that Catholics outside the West feel different then feel free to produce it. It is also perhaps worth noting that even those who favour compulsory celibacy generally recognise that it is a Church discipline not dogma and whilst they might not like it, they would have no great difficulty accepting it |
![]() |
|
| Eileenanne | Wednesday, 11. July 2012, 11:22 Post #30 |
|
Mairtin, I don't claim to know anything about what the majority of Catholics think. You claimed that you did. The onus is on you to prove that assertion correct. So far you have only quoted evidence from a few Western countries. I don't think a relatively small sample from a limited number of places can be said to representative of Catholics as a whole. My own feeling, for what it's worth is that I would prefer the Church to retain celibacy for priests, but if that discipline were relaxed I would learn to live with the change. Unlik some Anglicans, I would not see it as a reason to leave the Church I love. Eileenanne |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » |








8:38 PM Jul 11