Washington Times: Catholics rethink celibacy rule

[Saturn]

BERLIN | Shrinking parishes, a dwindling number of clergy and the taint from the Catholic Church‘s sex-abuse scandal are prompting calls in parts of Europe for church leaders to re-examine some of the institution’s basic policies.

More than 140 Catholic theologians from Germany, Austria and Switzerland this month published an open declaration to the church, urging officials to phase out the celibacy requirement for priests and implement other drastic reforms, such as ordaining women, allowing divorce and recognizing same-sex couples.

Source:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...celibacy-rule/

I really think the Church would do good to get rid of celibacy. What do you guys think?

[Burnum]

I really think the Church would do good to get rid of celibacy. What do you guys think?

It's not like they even follow it, really. I bet most of Cardinals have got some on the sly.

Everybody remember the Borgias?

[Pontifex Maximus]

It will never happen while Benedict is Pope...

[C-Rob]

I wish they would.

it would make a lot more young men willing to go that route.

Even I would at least put it on the table in that situation.

[Hun Birodalom]

I really think the Church would do good to get rid of celibacy. What do you guys think?

I was actually more intrigued with the proposition that women should be ordained. The exclusion of women, while limited, has no scriptural basis whatsoever. I could never understand how this practice has survived this long, even in the face of civil equality of women. The church has done far too many wrongs for women throughout history to not recognize the fallacy in continuing to discriminate against them.

[Adar]

I was actually more intrigued with the proposition that women should be ordained. The exclusion of women, while limited, has no scriptural basis whatsoever. I could never understand how this practice has survived this long, even in the face of civil equality of women. The church has done far too many wrongs for women throughout history to not recognize the fallacy in continuing to discriminate against them.

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
1 Corinthians 14:33-35 (NIV84)

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
1 Timothy 2:11–12 (NIV84)

Personally I believe that any proper church is going to have to maintain some levels of misogynism due to the unfortunate fact that christianity was created in a highly misogynic culture.

Sure you could drop the parts you don't like but then you wouldn't be very christian either.

I think the best they can do is to learn from the protestants and shiites. Claim tradition to be less important than scripture and then get rid of the celibacy rule. But I don't really see how they can drop the rest of rules without becoming the Anglican church but with a golden calf as it's figurehead.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I really think the Church would do good to get rid of celibacy. What do you guys think?

I think this is non-political.

[mongrel]

I think this is non-political.

That is an ecumenical matter.

[Denny Crane!]

That is an ecumenical matter.

Were you in Father Ted?

[Gromovnik]

I think they should stick to it now. They shouldn't implement celibacy in the first place, but now they should deal with it.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I think they should stick to it now. They shouldn't implement celibacy in the first place, but now they should deal with it.

Why? It's clearly not working and the misogynist attitude it originates from should be discarded.

[Gromovnik]

Why? It's clearly not working and the misogynist attitude it originates from should be discarded.

Because they can't claim that god changed his mind every time they want to change the rules.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Because they can't claim that god changed his mind every time they want to change the rules.

Can they not? Well, the thing is Pannonius, the Catholic Church changed the rules already to insert their misogyny. The early Christians frequently permitted female clergy and marriage - we know that Pliny arrested and tortured two deaconesses. The Catholics had no problem inserting more misogyny into Christianity, so I don't see any conflict in reverting to what Christ (that guy with that female disciple, described by early Christian writers as "the apostle of the apostles") would have actually wanted.

[Gromovnik]

Can they not? Well, the thing is Pannonius, the Catholic Church changed the rules already to insert their misogyny. The early Christians frequently permitted female clergy and marriage - we know that Pliny arrested and tortured two deaconesses. The Catholics had no problem inserting more misogyny into Christianity, so I don't see any conflict in reverting to what Christ (that guy with that female disciple, described by early Christian writers as "the apostle of the apostles") would have actually wanted.

Neither do I, I'm not a catholic. But how will they explain the last millenium or so? I think it would be in their best interest to keep what they have.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

The alter boys will not be happy to hear this

[Denny Crane!]

I don't think they should get rid of it, I'd prefer it if the Catholic Church didn't modernise and stuck with dumb attitudes and hasten its inevitable decline into a minority sect.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I don't think it works like that. Stupid people do win, especially the religiously stupid, because their ill-informed sense of superiority overrides their morality when doing evil things to get their way. The Catholic Church has no qualms about lying to villages with 40% HIV rates that condoms don't stop the spread of HIV, or banning all abortion, even if it means killing mothers in the process in Central America, protecting child rapists from the authorities or pretending that homosexuals are causing priests to assault these children, and this is a faith of a billion adherents. Left to their own devices people make the wrong decisions, because they're not very bright.

[Denny Crane!]

I don't think it works like that. Stupid people do win, especially the religiously stupid, because their ill-informed sense of superiority overrides their morality when doing evil things to get their way. The Catholic Church has no qualms about lying to villages with 40% HIV rates that condoms don't stop the spread of HIV, or banning all abortion, even if it means killing mothers in the process in Central America, protecting child rapists from the authorities or pretending that homosexuals are causing priests to assault these children, and this is a faith of a billion adherents. Left to their own devices people make the wrong decisions, because they're not very bright.

Well actually in that sense you might be right, the more it modernises the less it is getting people to feel different and adhere to rules others don't the less special it will feel and the more irrelevant it will become.

Go modernisation!

[Mathias]

When a church "modernizes" and changes it's doctrine, that should be a signal that it is not based on anything religious or divine at all. Jesus has yet to return, and there hasn't been a new prophet, so the word of God and the teachings of Jesus remains what they have been for the last 2000 years. The change can only be for political, practical and, well, human reasons, with no connections to the divine. One can wonder what the motivation behind the doctrines were in the first place.
A modernisation is an admittance that the church do not consider following the teachings Jesus as their top priority, or it is an admittance that the catholic church have not been following the word God for the last 1500 years and has as such been blasphemous for it's entire existence.
I can't see the Catholic church admitting to either of this.

[Denny Crane!]

When a church "modernizes" and changes it's doctrine, that should be a signal that it is not based on anything religious or divine at all. Jesus has yet to return, and there hasn't been a new prophet, so the word of God and the teachings of Jesus remains what they have been for the last 2000 years. The change can only be for political, practical and, well, human reasons, with no connections to the divine. One can wonder what the motivation behind the doctrines were in the first place.
A modernisation is an admittance that the church do not consider following the teachings Jesus as their top priority, or it is an admittance that the catholic church have not been following the word God for the last 1500 years and has as such been blasphemous for it's entire existence.
I can't see the Catholic church admitting to either of this.

I hope it does. I think you are correct, on consideration of this point I started thinking...if a priest can get married or screw around then being a priest becomes just another job and people stop seeing priests as anything but people.

The Catholic Church might not want to do it but have you seen what happens when a modernisation movement starts gripping a church? The idea of female Bishops nearly tore another domination apart but it wouldn't lose its grip.