Kindly if anyone update me on this. Is this for real? Why such drastic change? http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/07/14/3459644/pope-franics-priestly-celibacy/ Pope Francis hinted this past weekend that he is working on a “solution” to priestly celibacy, a move that could signal a possible shift in opinions — if not religious law — around the Catholic church’s practice of barring clergy from marrying. In an interview on Sunday with La Repubblica, an Italian Newspaper, Francis described the practice of priestly celibacy in unusually negative terms compared to his predecessors, framing it as a “problem” in need of fixing. “There definitely is a problem but it is not a major one,” he said. “This needs time but there are solutions and I will find them.” The comment has drawn attention for challenging the centuries-long church tradition of prohibiting priests from taking wives, although Pope Francis has voiced an arguably ambivalent view of priestly celibacy in the past. In May, he told a group of reporters that, “[celibacy] is a gift for the church, but since it is not a dogma, the door is always open.” In addition, Francis’ own secretary of state alsoremarked to a Venezuelan newspaper last year that, “Celibacy is not an institution but look, it is also true that you can discuss (it) because as you say this is not a dogma, a dogma of the church.” But the question remains: does the pope really want to change the church’s policy on priestly celibacy, and if he does, is that even within his power? At least one of those questions is easy to answer: yes, Francis can change the church’s policy. Priestly celibacy is only canon law, or a man-made rule, and not church dogma or doctrine. Priestly celibacy didn’t even exist in early Christianity, with several early popes (including Jesus’ disciple Simon Peter), bishops, and priests marrying and fathering children during the church’s first three centuries. The tradition of clerical continence doesn’t show up until the Council of Elvira around 305-306 CE, and wasn’t even formally codified into canon law until 1917. This is partially because — from a theological perspective — the argument for priestly celibacy is based more on informed religious assumptions and preferences than hard Biblical evidence. Many defenders of celibacy point to the fact that Jesus didn’t have a wife, and since priests are meant to emulate the example of Christ, marriage is thought to be suspect. But Jesus also spoke Aramaic, was Middle Eastern, and wore primitive clothing — things hard to find among many of today’s Catholic priests — and one of his disciples, Peter, is listed as having a mother-in-law. And while the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 that “I wish that all were as I myself am,” meaning celibate, even he refrains from making it a hard-and-fast rule. He goes on to add the following caveat a few verses later: “But if they are not practicing self control, then they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” In fact, married Catholic priests already exist — lots of them, actually. Roman Catholics are already allowed to ordain married men to the diaconate, an ordained position below priest, so long as they don’t intend to become full-fledged priests. Moreover, while the Roman Catholic Church constitutes the vast majority of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, it is only one of 23 “rites,” or religious sub-groups, within the church. These rites are broken down into two categorical chunks, one “Western” (the Latin/Roman Catholic rite) and 22 “Eastern” (everyone else), all of whom answer to the pope but harbor their own theological and liturgical eccentricities. Of these, most Eastern Catholics ordain married men to the priesthood, and while many of these Catholics have been reluctant to do so in the West for fear of attracting unnecessary attention, last year the U.S. Maronite Catholic Church ordained its first married priest in America. What’s more, the Roman church recently expanded and streamlined the process allowing married (male) Lutheran and Anglican/Episcopalian priests to enter into the Catholic fold — with wives in tow. As for whether or not Francis will actually follow through with finding “solutions” for priests who want to marry, that’s a little more difficult to discern, but it’s notable that his comments come in the wake of a noticeable uptick in support for married Catholic priests. A global Univision poll released in February reported that the majority of Catholics now believe priests should be allowed to marry, a sentiment that is showing up in the church’s own worldwide survey as well. In May, a group of 26 women sent a letter to the pope begging him to endorse married priests so they can finally “start a relationship with a priest we are in love with.” Finally, in June, the Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation published a statement on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops website urging the church to change its position, saying that allowing for married priests would “assure the Orthodox Church that, in the event of the restoration of full communion between the two Churches, the traditions of the Orthodox Church would not be questioned.” This message from the Orthodox Church, which allows for married priests, is particularly important given that Francis is actively cultivating a relationship with Patriarch Bartholomew, the head of the Orthodox church, in an effort to move towards a full unification of the two religious traditions. To be sure, Pope Francis hasn’t made his exact intentions around priestly celibacy clear, and nothing in the Catholic Church moves quickly — any institution as large and old as the Vatican is likely to take its time on things. But as the church draws closer to its Extraordinary Synod on the Family — a large gathering of key bishops where a variety of “family issues,” including preistly celibacy, are on the docket for discussion — this October, it’s worth watching to see if Francis’ increasingly vocal ambivalence about unmarried priests turns into a major, if possibly long overdue, shift in church law.
What was wrong with the Pope's latest interview? A lot. By Phil Lawler (bio - articles - email) | Jul 15, 2014 (excerpt) In the messy aftermath of yet another papal interview, how shall I explain what went wrong? There were so many different problems, it’s hard to know where to begin. One might start with the odd habits of Eugenio Scalfari, the veteran Italian journalist who has now had three such sessions with the Holy Father. It is Scalfari’s habit, when he conducts an interview, to make no recording and take no notes. (A few reports from Rome have referred to this eccentricity as a “tradition,” suggesting an undeserved reverence for Scalfari as a sort of national institution.) Scalfari then reconstructs the conversation from memory. Any respectable American media outlet would summarily fire a reporter who pulled this sort of stunt. According to our journalistic standards, any statement inside quotation marks should be a precise recording of what the subject said; any omissions or corrections or editorial interpolations should be clearly marked as such. Errors in transcription may be forgiven. But errors due to laziness or arrogance, of the sort manifested by a refusal to take notes, are inexcusable. Apparently, though, the Italian journalist plays by different rules. If Scalfari claimed to have a photographic memory, his interviewing technique would at least be understandable. But very few men of his age (over 90) make such a claim, and Scalfari is not one of them. He explains that he prefers to put the thoughts of his subject (in this case Pope Francis) into his own (Scalfari’s) words. That way, I gather, the readers have the pleasure of reading Scalfari’s elegrant prose, rather than the clunky sentences of his interview subjects. This approach might work, theoretically, as long as Scalfari understood perfectly what his subjects were saying. But no one understands another man perfectly. So when Scalfari sets out to reconstruct quotations, what the reader receives is not (in this case) what Pope Francis said, but at best what Scalfari understood Pope Francis to be saying—which could be quite different. Sure enough, the Vatican press office found it necessary to issue a statement warning that the quotations attributed to the Pope were not reliable. And here we arrive at a second major problem: the official Vatican response to the publication of the interview. ”We should not or must not speak in any way, shape or form of an interview in the normal use of the word,” Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office, tells us. Yet he says that the Pope’s conversation with Scalfari was “very cordial and most interesting”—taking time to refer to Scalfari as an “expert journalist.” Father Lombardi says: It is safe to say, however that the overall theme of the article captures the spirit of the conversation between the Holy Father and Mr. Scalfari while at the same time strongly restating what was said about the previous “interview” that appeared in La Repubblica: the individual expressions that were used and the manner in which they have been reported, cannot be attributed to the Pope. What are we to make of that paragraph? The Vatican spokesman says that the article in La Repubblica accurately “captures the spirit of the conversation,” but any given statement attributed to the Pope might be inaccurate. Yet he does not correct any inaccuracies. Having said that the article is “most interesting,” he leaves readers to sort out truth and error for themselves... From: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1044
I have given up believing anything at all written or said about the Holy Father unless it is good. They seem to write just what ever they feel like. All Popes get this of course, but with Pope Francis it is like a mad feeding frenzy. I suspect a lot of it is a hopeful kind of nudging in certain directions by a very,very Liberal daydreaming media.
I think that part of the problem is that for many decades now, there are un-converted people in and out of the Church that are not at all concerned of the things of God, only of "equality" and social freedom from the guilt of sin. These people and groups have pushed every Pope into changing the Church's stance on Celibacy, woman clergy, divorce, etc.... The difference is most previous Popes refused to even publicly comment on these issues. This Pope seems to want to discuss it and then lay it to rest for good.
I just have to come in here and criticise the Voris video. Although he would deny it, it is effectively a direct attack on Pope Francis under the 'fig-leaf' cover of using the term 'leaders' instead of Pope Francis. Unlike many on this forum, I love the fact that the Pope speaks openly (and frequently!) to journalists. It is the next best thing to being able to talk to the Pope ourselves! Yes, of course the reports may not always be entirely accurate but there have actually been very few examples of serious errors in the reports. Now it is also true that the Pope's words can always be quoted selectively to 'fit' ones own prejudices but that is inevitable as the Pope is not speaking in a lawyer's language as Voris would have him do. My advice is to ignore the comments ABOUT an interview with the Pope and just read the interview itself. I have found doing that to be very profitable and rewarding.
I'm not even watching the Voris video. I can imagine what it is. These days, I have absolutely no patience with those who believe the best use of the time they have should be spent cataloguing the weaknesses and sins of others. Is anybody converted by these reports? Does anybody draw closer to God because of them? I think all they really do is puff us up: "Thank you, Lord, that I am not like these others..." The greatest chastisement since the deluge is upon us, and God is not asking for a meticulous report from us regarding the bad behavior around us. And I sense He is deeply offended by those who would criticize His Pope! In the days to come, we will deeply regret every moment wasted wringing our hands and clucking our tongues. Especially in these days, every moment we don't spend in prayer is a waste. (I'm giving myself this lecture, too! This is not the time to entertain ourselves, and internet surfing is my main form of entertainment!)
Trouble for Pope Francis if he does find a solution... On Priestly Celibacy. Our Lady to St. Bridget of Sweden (Appointed Patron of Europe by Pope John Paul II) as recounted in ‘The Prophecies and Revelations of St. Bridget’ (The authorship of this work is not disputed) Very strong words! “But now I shall tell you God's will in this matter…… Know this too: that if some pope concedes to priests a license to contract carnal marriage, God will condemn him to a sentence as great, in a spiritual way, as that which the law justly inflicts in a corporeal way on a man who has transgressed so gravely that he must have his eyes gouged out, his tongue and lips, nose and ears cut off, his hands and feet amputated, all his body's blood spilled out to grow completely cold, and finally, his whole bloodless corpse cast out to be devoured by dogs and other wild beasts. Similar things would truly happen in a spiritual way to that pope who were to go against the aforementioned preordinance and will of God and concede to priests such a license to contract marriage. For that same pope would be totally deprived by God of his spiritual sight and hearing, and of his spiritual words and deeds. All his spiritual wisdom would grow completely cold; and finally, after his death, his soul would be cast out to be tortured eternally in hell so that there it might become the food of demons everlastingly and without end. Yes, even if Saint Gregory the Pope had made this statute, in the aforesaid sentence he would never have obtained mercy from God if he had not humbly revoked his statute before his death.” She says a great deal more about the Church and Churchmen that could have been written yesterday!
I believe St. Teresa of Avila was shown her place in hell, should she earn it. We all have to paddle our own canoes!
So true Kathy and goes right to one of my favorite things Jesus ever said to us. We must be publicans!: [6] And the Lord said: Hear what the unjust judge saith. [7] And will not God revenge his elect who cry to him day and night: and will he have patience in their regard? [8] I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? [9] And to some who trusted in themselves as just, and despised others, he spoke also this parable: [10] Two men went up into the temple to pray: the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. [11] The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican. [12] I fast twice in a week: I give tithes of all that I possess. [13] And the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes towards heaven; but struck his breast, saying: O God, be merciful to me a sinner. [14] I say to you, this man went down into his house justified rather than the other: because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted.
This is quite an interesting perspective on Pope Francis from the Spectator magazine: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...clue-that-francis-is-at-war-with-the-vatican/ I don't necessarily agree with the opinion but I'm not sure I disagree with it either! The Pope and ‘paedophile cardinals’: another clue that Francis is at war with the Vatican 121 comments18 July 2014 17:46Damian Thompson Today’s front-page splash in The Catholic Herald reads: ‘Vatican in a spin as Pope Francis grants an explosive new interview’. That interview, with La Repubblica, quoted Francis as saying that his advisors had told him that two per cent of clergy were paedophiles – including ‘bishops and cardinals’. The Independent ran with the headline: ‘Pope Francis: “One in 50” Catholic priests, bishops and cardinals is a paedophile’. What fascinates me is the reaction of the Vatican Press Office, which has gone into full L/Cpl Jones ‘Don’t Panic!’ mode. Fr Federico Lombardi, the Pope’s hapless press officer, has been pointing out that La Repubblica’s interviewer, Eugenio Scalfari, (a) didn’t use a tape recorder, (b) didn’t take notes but relied on his memory and (c) is 90 years old. All of which is true. But it was also true last September, when Francis gave an earlier interview to Scalfari – an atheist, incidentally – under exactly the same conditions. That produced lurid headlines: Francis supposedly called the Vatican court ‘the leprosy of the papacy’, and poor Lombardi had to run around saying, hang on, there were no notes, Scalfari is ancient, etc. So why did Francis go back to Scalfari? I reckon the uncheckability of the quotes suits him fine. He can express his views that the Vatican is crawling with fawning backstabbers and that sexual perverts are over-represented among the clergy right up to the level of cardinal – yet leave himself diplomatic legroom by allowing for the possibility that he’s been misquoted. He is a Jesuit, after all. So is Lombardi, but it’s obvious who is being more Jesuitical here. The background to this is the Pope’s war on the Vatican. I think he hates the place. And it’s interesting that he’s placed enormous power in the hands of Cardinal George Pell, who is also full of contempt for its greedy placemen. My guess is that the reforms, when they come, will be savage.
I have made a personal resolution to not comment on what folks think the Pope might have done, or what he might be about to do. I'll keep my powder dry until he actually does one of the things he is supposed to be getting ready to do. He has a tough job, I don't envy him. The guy could be retired with his feet up as he intended. Instead he has the toughest job on the planet. I must remember to pray for him and all priests. I keep forgetting.
I'm with Padraig on this one. There's so much paper articles running around with news stories about "what will happen if the Pope decided to do this if he holds a meeting with somebody next year if if......" I'm waiting.
I admit to missing Pope Benedict XVI. You knew where you stood and you knew he would uphold true Church teaching; I trusted him. He was not loved by 'the world' which was really just another sign of his conformation to Christ.
I am so sad that these are happening. But with the comments of the Pope and the advent of the Synod of Bishops, there's always a possibility that all our speculations could be true. I do not want to think anything negative about the Pope. But if everything that are speculated comes true, then I may want to believe that MDM could be true? God forbid!
And I miss Saint John Paul II the Great! But I love and trust Peter, no matter who holds the keys. I trust Pope Francis will carry those keys well, and of course, uphold Church teaching. The enemy of our souls wants desperately to separate us from each other, from the Church and from Peter. I avoid reading speculative reports that casts doubt and insinuates bad intent on the part of Pope Francis. Our enemy is the father of lies, and only wants to cause division. You can rest assured, MDM is NOT TRUE. These are dangerous times. The safest place to be is in the Immaculate Heart of Mary, standing firmly with Peter!
MDM is false.But there is likely much truth in the messages,as there is in most modern day prophets.After all the 'FATHER OF LIES', satan himself has a pretty good idea of what is unfolding.Since he is orchestrating it. Fortunately we cant go wrong if hold to what the Saints and Church have always taught. St Athanasius ..."Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
There wouldn't seem to be too much difficulty in allowing suitable married men being ordained to probationary Deacons and then priestly ordination. The Catholic Church even now has active married clergy (coming in via other Christian faith traditions). Hopefully St Bridget's curse on the responsible Popes isn't activated by this thin-edge-of-the-wedge decision. The article above seems mistaken in implying there has been a long history of active Priests marrying - this has never been a discipline or a theology of the Catholic Church as far as I am aware. Yes, in the early days married men were married before ordination (eg Peter) but not the reverse.
