Catholic MNers would it bother you if your PP was in a consensual sexual relationship?

[Buddleja]

Just listening to the news and caught the end of a report where a catholic priest admitted to being in a sexual relationship with a woman (over 18 and all consensual)

I am not the slightest bit concerned by it - but saying that i don't think catholic priest, monks or nuns should be celebrate if the come across a person that they wish to be in a relationship with

Whilst i wouldn't be impressed with PP that was out each weekend "picking up chicks" (just because this would go against the teaching of the church he's supposed to represent - lead by example and all that) I think priest should be able to marry and have sex?

For the record this is NOT about the child sex abuse scandel please try and keep away from that in this discussion

he should have left the priesthood and married her before having sex with her.

I'm disgusted by his hypocrisy.

I'm not a catholic and am not really bothered by what people get up to in private where activity is consensual, but I'm with colditz on this one. The fact is that as a Catholic priest, he will have made vows before God and the people he represents, and has knowingly and deliberately chosen to break those vows.

The 'rightness' or otherwise of the vows isn't the issue. The fact is that he made them, and broke them, and is carrying on as if nothing had happened. I wouldn't be too chuffed if my husband, having made vows before God and our family to be faithful to me, then decided he wanted to sleep with someone else and justified it on the basis that it was ok because it was consensual. I don't see that there is much of a difference here TBH.

I wouldn't be bothered if the church changed the rules and allowed married priests but I would be bothered by a priest in a sexual relationship under current rules. Not because of the relationship per se but because of the hypocrisy. He'd be breaking his vows and what sort of example or message does that send to the laity? It's reasonably easy to leave the priesthood these days (my own cousin "resigned" his vocation a few years ago) so why not do the honourable thing?

Good point - one I'd not thought of (probably as I am a seriously lapsed CAtholic myself

I've know two priests decloth because they met someone - both married now - no clue if they had a sexual relationship before the declothing!! Doubt it though they were devote men

THat was years ago (when i attended church) and it was very very difficult for them to leave - good to hear it's now reasonably easy

A priest can't marry Riven - forbidden in 1139 I think

A married man can become a priest (but never a bishop) - but that's hardly a common occurance is it

It was brought in after the age of ponocracy when Bishops had harems etc.

I think it was to reign people back in.

I think priests should be allowed to marry. All the arguements for Deacons being allowed to marry could be applyed to priests, imo. Priests did used to marry and St. Peter was married and I don't think the arguements for not marrying are strong, in fact I think the priesthood is weakened as good men are lost.

However, priests aren't allowed to marry under the current rules so they should leave the priesthood and then marry if they want a marital relationship. Nothing to stop them becoming Deacons instead or serving the parish another way.

It was something to do with sexual intercourse was banned the night before the eucharist was celebrated and then daily ehcharist came about which really made the marraige sexless and fairly rubbish as a result!!!

Mostly I think it came about to stop any children occuring and risking them inheriting the churches property.

When the pope was changed a while back there was one candidate that it was thought might just change the law if he was popified

Riven - theologically I think it's something to do with Paul's comments (in Corinthians or Galatians I think - sorry, am rubbish with scripture ) saying that it was better not to marry but to dedicate your life to Christ, but if not marrying was going to cause you to burn with lust, then you should marry. Also there is the analogy that runs through the New Testament of the church (as a body of people) being Christ's 'bride' - hence the idea that priests, as representatives of Christ, should be 'married' to the church / their congregation.

That doesn't explain why priestly celibacy wasn't introduced until 1139, though! As I've said before, the church and its institutions have an awful lot to answer for in twisting the Bible to suit its own ends.

I wouldn't be bothered
it seems more natural to me that people have partners of some form

I would be vey bothered. He agreed to be celebate and that's what I expect. So he's also having sex outside marrriage... not the sort of hypocrasy I'd want from my PP.

I am RC

but dont often go to Mass much these days. I recently attended a couple of Christenings at C of E churches and was very impressed at how inclusive & fun the services were. I don't think you could say that about any of the RC churches where I have attended.

I also agree that it is more natural for people to have relationships with others rather than with an institution,

However, IMO Priests wear wedding rings - they make vows and "Marry" into the Church, so if a priest has a relationship be it sexual or not - I see that in the same way as adultery!

Only the Catholics have this rule. Because they believe that the pope holds divine authority, anything that a pope decided over the ages is considered binding. Another rule introduced by the pope is the one about not useing contraception

There is no theological reason for priests to remain unmarried for life.

The rule was introduced in the middle ages so that the church would not have to support the priest's family.

There are married priests within the RCC, but these were former Anglicans who jumped ship when the CofE first allowed the ordination of women. Married men can be ordained as permanent deacons.

I would be shocked if a priest of any denomination had a mistress. The church teaches that sexual relations should take place only within marriage. I also recognise that priests are sinners like the rest of us.

I am a practicing Catholic and if I heard my priest was involved in a sexual relationship I would find this incredibly hypocritical.

IMO priests should be allowed to marry but whilst this isn't possible they must abide by the laws of the church that they preach to their parishoners.

Yes, I would find it objectionable for a priest to A) be underhand about anything, B) disregard his vow of celibacy -- ditto for any other vow such as poverty, C) carry on hypocritically telling others how to conduct themselves D) carry on some sort of public fight with the bishop and with Rome over marriage vs. celibacy, which a public relationship would involve. I think it's more honourable if you have a beef with the church, to resign, get married, and take up the matter from that point.

I know of a Catholic priest who got married, in a CofE church, to a Catholic woman (I know the wife) there is no theological reason to ban marriage for priests, afaik, but nevertheless the ban is there, like it or lump it; I wonder about the level of attention-seeking and the contrariness of someone who would try to make a point such as this from the position of being a priest in the Catholic church. The priest I know has not resigned he is in a kind of limbo in the diocese.

The institutional church is not about any one individual or his or her issues with particular rules. As an individual, whatever a priest does about the rules is up to his own conscience, and his relationship with God is up to him to cultivate ultimately God is the judge anyhow but as a priest there is a responsibility to live your life according to the rules and to be seen to be doing so. A priest is a public representative of the Church as well as being an individual believer.

IMO.

I should have been clearer and said that I thought that Paul etc was the theological justification for priestly celibacy, rather than a reason - my point being that the church as a body can justify almost anything theologically to suit its own political / social ends, and has done on very many occasions through its history (and I'm not pointing fingers at the catholic church specifically here, it goes across all denominations).

Paul was a single man, but this could equally mean that he was widowed. Many of the apostles were married, as were the early church fathers.

In the RC Church, priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine it's a rule, not a dogma it could theoretically be changed.

My late father left the RC priesthood to marry my mother. They married very shortly after they met BTW.

They were both very poorly treated considering Dad chose to give up his priesthood (therefore no scandal). As they could not worship at any RC church in the area - they were ordered to keep away by a letter from the Bishop, they began to worship at a CofE church. I and my brother born a year later were baptised CofE and shortly after my Dad did some training at an Anglican theological college in order to continue in his priestly vocation.

In short - I would be cross if I was RC at the hypocrisy as my Father gave up so much (his vocation was being tested from a very young age) for his priesthood and later for my Mum.

Believe in the authority of the Pope and Roman Catholic church = keep to it's rules IMO. Or leave the priesthood.

I had a teacher who had left the priesthood and got married -- very nice man, great teacher. I don't know if he was a secular priest or a member of an order; there seemed to be no problem with him attending Mass. He taught religion and English.

Actually, it wouldn't bother me much either. But then all the priests I have had dealings with have been very understanding about the "failings" of their parishioners - pre-marital sex, co-habitation etc. It would be a bit hypocritical of me to condemn a man for essentially doing what I have done, and vice versa.

I know a number of men who have left the priesthood and married. I think they were a loss.

I think there are a lot of catholics who see married priests as a way to boost falling vocations and who would have no problem with married men having vocations.

As can be seen from this thread, it's the hypocrisy of breaking vows that would annoy more than the relationship itself.

I personally think there are some good arguments for and against priests being allowed to marry, and would not mind either way. I think that provided the priest can be satisfied that he can still serve in his parish properly, and he wants to marry, (many actually do not) then perhaps this should be allowed.

As MmeTrueBlueberry mentions, there are married priests in the RCC, who were previously Anglicans, but they were full Anglican priests, who were already married before converting to Catholicism. A married Catholic cannot enter the priesthood, and existing priests either Catholic or originally Anglican entering the RCC cannot then marry later. Married converts to the priesthood do have to make the same vows of celibacy though I think as other Catholic priests, and therefore the wife is no longer the wife in the traditional sense of a marriage. (May stand to be corrected - I think that is the case!).

The issue here is the fact that the priest has broken his vows, and is also committting the sin of sex outside marriage which the RCC forbids. I would not be happy if my PP did that, it is hypocritical of him to continue in his vocation if he is indulging in this sin. He needs to have some prayers said for him, and needs guidance from his Bishop and of course above all God, to do what is the right thing. If he cannot give this woman up (and if he loves her more than he loves his vocation, perhaps he should not)then he should leave the priesthood, and marry her. He cannot have both his vocation and his relationship with this woman. Certainly not with the current rules on marriage in the priesthood.