Celibacy for Priests 'Can be Changed', says Pope Francis

[Muffled]

The rule of priestly celibacy has been called into question by Pope Francis, who says he believes that the rules requiring all priests to abstain from sex "can be changed."

The tradition in the Catholic Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been in place since the early Middle Ages.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."

Psychotherapist and former Benedictine priest Richard Sipe has conducted a study of celibate and sexual behaviour among Catholic clerics in the United States from 1960 to 1985, and found that half of all priests and Catholic brothers were sexually active at any particular time.

Masturbation was the most frequent sexual activity, followed by affairs with women, sex with male companions, and Internet pornography. He also believes that these numbers have not changed much today.

"Sex is really very close to an addiction. It's a drive that doesn't go away," Sipe told the New York Times. "If you're going to live without it, you can't live like a normal person. You can't just say one day, 'I'm celibate.' Celibacy is a process."
source

______________________________________________________________

Catholic Sexual Ethics . . . responds to the objection that masturbation is not a grave moral disorder in certain circumstances. Adolescent masturbation is given as one of the circumstances. The response is that the Church has always acknowledged that circumstances alter cases, and that there are degrees of responsibility in the different kinds of masturbation. But the Church holds that the act of masturbation remains OBJECTIVELY SERIOUSLY WRONG. Rightly she distinguishes between the objective gravity of the masturbatory act and the personal responsibility of the agent. This important distinction, which Farraher elaborates, enables us to hold the traditional position, while making allowances for a variety of mitigating factors which diminish the personal guilt of the masturbator, provided he is willing to do whatever may be necessary to overcome the bad habit, or in some cases, the compulsion.
source

​

Catholic or not, what is your opinion on celibacy for Catholic priests and bishops? If you would, please indicate whether or not you're Catholic.

I believe the Apostle Paul states that celibacy should not be mandated. I am protestant and agree with the Bible not the Church.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The Bible says in I Timothy 3:2 that a bishop should be the husband of one wife. It seems the Roman church either dies not believe the Bible or perfers to ignore it. Makes you wonder how many other Biblical teachings they also ignore.

 

[Muffled]

I'm up for anything that may result in more non-pedophiles becoming priests.

I believe it is more likely that men who became pedophiles were simply seeking an outlet for their sexuality.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I believe it is more likely that men who became pedophiles were simply seeking an outlet for their sexuality.

Indeed, which is why if there are less positions for them to fill, there would be less pedophile priests.

 

[Demonslayer]

Makes you wonder how many other Biblical teachings they also ignore

Thankfully they ignore the ones that say to murder homosexuals, adulterers and kids who crack wise to their parents.

 

[Willamena]

I think it's a great idea. I look forward to our first lesbian Catholic priest.

 

[metis]

I don't see how. Flying an aircraft doesn't violate any principle of Catholic teleological ethics. In fact, flight is the telos of any self-respecting aircraft. To use a condom however, is to deliberately frustrate the natural end of the sexual act; procreation. To do so is to distort sex as our participation in the creative act of God, to a mere plaything for our own pleasure. It's an abuse.

"Abuse" is when you do something against one's will, therefore birth control is simply not abuse intrinsically. Nor is there any scriptural evidence that it is, and if you think there is, please provide us with the supposed verses.

The sexual drive is not a perversion but a very natural biological impulse, and since God gave us this desire, satisfying it, as long as no one is being harmed, is hardly "abuse".

 

[Glaurung]

"Abuse" is when you do something against one's will

Rather vague and limited definition that is hardly descriptive of standard English usage. The definition of abuse.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...l2.1038j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

The relevant definitions.
Verb
use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.

Noun
the improper use of something.

It's also funnily enough an euphemism for masturbation. (Granted not one you hear too often these days)

Nor is there any scriptural evidence that it is, and if you think there is, please provide us with the supposed verses.

Have you been paying any attention to anything I've told you? Of course there's no verse that says 'thou shalt not use condoms.' But again that's a naive way of looking at it.
For one, historic Christian teaching and the Church Fathers are pretty clear on the subject.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/contraception-and-sterilization

Secondly we can look at what Christ taught and we can make some reasonable assumptions. Do you really believe that Christ would approve that his followers contracept, masturbate and use pornography? Or would he suggest we become as the angels with no giving and or taking in marriage? That we become eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven? Sure, there's no one verse that explicitly states that contraception and masturbation are wrong, but reading the New Testament and the teachings of Christ honestly leads to that very reasonable assumption. You are clasping at straws trying to hamfist in a sexual liberalism which the spirit of New Testament teaching, yet alone wider Christian teaching clearly condemns.

The sexual drive is not a perversion but a very natural biological impulse, and since God gave us this desire, satisfying it, as long as no one is being harmed, is hardly "abuse".

Sexual desires in and of themselves are hardly perverse, no one has claimed such. Marriage and the sexual act that comes with it are good things. But using artificial means to frustrate the potentially procreative aspect of sex is a distortion. God has given us the sexual function for a reason, as such we may not abuse it by refusing the potential for new life by contraception. The same thing follows for masturbation and pornography. (Which can be an even graver sin than fornication)

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Just look at the millions of unwanted children born to families that cannot afford to take care of them and it seems that a method to prevent some of them is a good thing.

 

[David M]

a rule that has been in place since the early Middle Ages..

Which is why it definitely can be changed.

 

[Muffled]

Just look at the millions of unwanted children born to families that cannot afford to take care of them and it seems that a method to prevent some of them is a good thing.

That reminds me of the father of my grandchildren who said that as a Catholic he shouldn't use protection. I asked him why he didn't adhere to church teaching that one shouldn't have sex outside of marriage and he said " Oh we choose the rules we like."

 

[metis]

Of course there's no verse that says 'thou shalt not use condoms.' But again that's a naive way of looking at it.

If studying and teaching theology is "naive", then I guess I'm guilty of that, and you skew the discussion with the above as we're talking about birth control and the scriptures, and there's literally no prohibition mentioned or implied there.

For one, historic Christian teaching and the Church Fathers are pretty clear on the subject.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/contraception-and-sterilization

Secondly we can look at what Christ taught and we can make some reasonable assumptions. Do you really believe that Christ would approve that his followers contracept, masturbate and use pornography?

It is exactly these teachings that I am questioning, and the fact that roughly 99% of all American Catholics that have had sex have used birth control is quite telling. The church based its teachings on a rather bizarre interpretation of a narrative found in the Tanakh, and in today's day and age whereas population growth has helped to create major problems of poverty, starvation, global warming, etc., why should a dubious interpretation trump these very serious problems?

 

[Glaurung]

It is exactly these teachings that I am questioning, and the fact that roughly 99% of all American Catholics that have had sex have used birth control is quite telling.

The disobedience of the laity in regards to a teaching does not in any way whatsoever detract from the authority of that teaching. It doesn't even matter that most Catholics fail even in their most basic religious obligations such as attending Mass. An obligation is still an obligation, and a moral ruling is a moral ruling. Any Catholic who is in wilful disobedience to the Magisterium is in grievous sin. And this is stated explicitly Matthew 16:18-19.

The church based its teachings on a rather bizarre interpretation of a narrative found in the Tanakh

It's not just about the Tanakh, and it's not Catholicism that's obsessed with wasted semen as I'm sure you well know. It's that sexual immorality is incompatible with Christian ethics, and any sexual activity where the procreative possibility has been deliberately avoided is immoral according the Church. It's that simple. Understandably it's a hard teaching to accept. But Christ never promised the Christian path to be easy. Quite the opposite.

But you'd have it, that what has always been condemned by the Church since antiquity is suddenly acceptable. On what basis? That it's suddenly inconvenient for those who wish to avoid children?

and in today's day and age whereas population growth has helped to create major problems of poverty, starvation, global warming, etc., why should a dubious interpretation trump these very serious problems?

Because it's a red-herring. Your typical Catholic male who undergoes a vasectomy does not do so because he is nobly worried about population and poverty. It's not an either all. It's simply not the case that you either accept unrestricted birth control or do nothing at all about the world's problems. Perhaps if the wealth wasn't so hoarded by the relative few we could at least do something about the poverty thing. Condoms and abortions for all is a bandaid. It's got nothing to do with the world's problems, but the desire of people to avoid the consequences of sex.

 

[metis]

Any Catholic who is in wilful disobedience to the Magisterium is in grievous sin. And this is stated explicitly Matthew 16:18-19.

But that verse does not really say or imply that.

Secondly, the church does not demand complete obedience to the magisterium with the exception of of encyclicals and papal decisions ex cathedra, and even the former can change. There's an excellent book entitled "Let Your (Informed) Conscience Be Your Guide" that covers this, for example.

Except for the two reasons above, one is told to learn about the teachings but then let their own conscience dictate which way they should go, and if they are not sure, then they should follow the church's teachings.

It's that sexual immorality is incompatible with Christian ethics, and any sexual activity where the procreative possibility has been deliberately avoided is immoral according the Church.

Most other Christian churches disagree with you one that, but that's neither here nor there.

But you'd have it, that what has always been condemned by the Church since antiquity is suddenly acceptable. On what basis? That it's suddenly inconvenient for those who wish to avoid children?

Within Jewish tradition (not scripture however), children were well in demand because of various factors, including a high death rate, the need for soldiers, etc. These conditions no longer apply to us nor the world in general.

Because it's a red-herring. Your typical Catholic male who undergoes a vasectomy does not do so because he is nobly worried about population and poverty...It's got nothing to do with the world's problems, but the desire of people to avoid the consequences of sex.

People can and do use contraception for more than just one reason.

Anyhow, it's not likely we would ever agree on this, so I'll let you have the last world.