Jump to content

Sign of the times..


Recommended Posts

Rochester's Bishop ordained a married man as a priest in the Catholic church. Wow, I know the numbers are down, but who knew it was this bad? So, the celibacy thing is just another situational ethic to be winked at when the need arises?

 

Any more wiggle room in the "rules" and we'll be left to think that the church is being run by NASCAR!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been done before -- a teacher in my HS was a married priest and that was 25 years ago. He had been a priest in another domination that allows marriage and converted to Catholicism. I'm guessing a similar situation in Rochester?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've heard, and this may be false, the Catholic Church changed from allowing priests to be married men to requiring them to be celibate so that priests would leave their possessions to the Church after they died.

 

But yes, it's amazing how much ethics change when there's a need. Kind of like decriminalizing drugs because we need the tax revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the celibacy thing is just another situational ethic to be winked at when the need arises?

 

 

Not really, because he was a Protestant Minister when he converted he is allowed to stay married.

 

"Father James Schwartz, diocesan director of seminarians, said that although obtaining dispensation from celibacy is rare in the Roman Catholic priesthood, the ordination of former Protestant ministers does occur in other U.S. dioceses.

 

"We aren't alone. (Approval is) being routinely made when they have the support of the bishop," Father Schwartz said, adding that he hopes more people will come forward who might fit these special circumstances: "I think of it in terms of inclusivity -- it opens the door to a wider sphere."

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.catholiccourier.com/news/local-news/family-man-eyes-historic-ordination/#ixzz1PAicZkN9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've heard, and this may be false, the Catholic Church changed from allowing priests to be married men to requiring them to be celibate so that priests would leave their possessions to the Church after they died.

 

But yes, it's amazing how much ethics change when there's a need. Kind of like decriminalizing drugs because we need the tax revenue.

That's because ethics is a useless term invented to avoid this fundamental truth: There are only values and principles. By contrast, ethics can mean anything to anyone, can be defined by anyone, at any given point in time and is wholly dependent on point of view.

 

Principles are universal: it will never be OK for anyone to kill, lie, cheat, steal, etc. because we need tax revenue or for any other reason. That is true the world over.

Values on the other hand are cultural, familial, you name it, and can be changed at the drop of a hat. Some very principled people are ok with polygamy, some very principled people are not. Some cultures value haggling over a set price, etc.

 

Drugs by themselves violate exactly 0 human principles...which is exactly why you cannot get people to stop taking them, selling them, or making them. Some people may not value them as much as others, but nobody in their right mind equates doing drugs with stealing, lying, cheating and certainly not killing. And, certainly there are some very principled people who value doing drugs.

 

And, the celibacy of priests goes a looooong way back to the Holy Roman Empire and Charlamange...who was a polygamist btw, and so does the definition of marriage as monogamy taking the place of polygamy. It all came down to real estate. It was about trying to make sure a mini-war didn't start every time a noble died, and, as most priests were the 2nd sons of nobles, etc. had the added benefit of the church being able to claim the land that was left to the priest if no other heir survived.

 

Again, celibacy and monogamy are merely values. They are not principles. That is why the gay marriage/health care is a right/social justice arguments fail: they are based on values, not principles. When you hear Democrats talk about "people who share our values"...that's actually accurate. However, the fact that they are trying to use language to merge the concept of principles with values is lost on no one but idiots.

Edited by OCinBuffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...