Secret Squirrel Contemplates Married Priests In The R.C. Church,Existent

Secret Squirrel has pondered the Church,The Roman Catholic Church,as to the present, but possibly changing,attitude towards marriage and the priesthood.It all started,basically, with (St) Peter(Petrus),Disciple of Jesus from whom he received the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, according to Matthew 16:18–19 . Executed by crucifixion upside-down. He is recognized as the first Bishop of Rome (Pope) appointed by Christ, by the Catholic Church. Also revered as saint in Eastern Christianity, with a feast day of 29 June,with the Papal commencement of 105AD.Others commence to count as Popes with Emperor Constantine,whom some regard as anti-Christ et all so I’ll not argue whom really is the first Pope,or Bishop Of Rome, or when the Roman Catholic Church started, but it started at the beginning.And, in the beginning, Popes could marry as they wished, even yet, Popes and Priests,and everybody for that matter, had, laugh not, wives and were permitted to have wives, as so was the custom as it was in Old Testament times, so was it then as well, and they could have not only wives, but,you didn’t guess did you, concubines, again as it was at commencement in the Old Testament as well, as it so testifies. So, priests could marry, and have many wives, not just one, there was no limit,Jewish rabbinical law of the day even yet recommended four….In biblical times many wives, concubines and breeders was common and never spoken against. In the Tanakh, Jewish priests suggest 4 wives was probably about the right number,but they remained flexible on wives, no limit was placed on concubines and breeders.Yeah tho we walk in the valley of polygamy,so then did everybody,and the valley of concubines, and the valley of breeders, and so too did priests right
along with everybody else,as it was the thing to do in that day and time.

So when did it all change………and why?Well,

http://www.libchrist.com/bible/catholiccelibacy.html

The idea of Catholic celibacy is especially foolish when you realize the reason behind it. Before the middle ages it was allowable for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses (concubines). But with concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree offspring could not inherit Church property. Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate (only sons since lowly daughters could not inherit anyway in society).

In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. This had nothing to do with morality, multiple women for males had long been the norm since before biblical times, but it was about MONEY!

http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/monogamy/mono-history.htm

CATHOLIC PRIESTS WERE MONOGAMOUS AND POLYGAMOUS BUT MADE CELIBATE
Due to the widespread illiteracy of the scriptures, especially that of the Gentile believers who were totally ignorant of the Torah, whatever the Catholic priests said were considered as God’s Law and divine truths. One area of total distortion was that of marital relationship. Surprising to almost all of us, it was common for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses. In 726AD, it was acceptable for a man with a sick wife to take a second wife so long as he looked after the first one. With concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance however, offspring could not inherit church property and it was later declared that all sons of priests were illegitimate. In 1022, Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages
for priests (monogamous or polygamous). Finally in 1139, Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. All these were done to possess and protect money and church property. Making polygamy a sin and marriage unacceptable for a priest was a slow and purposeful process.

And so it was done, Priests could not marry,and they had little to celebrate,they were made celebate.Curiously the ROMANS WERE NOTORIOUSLY MONOGAMOUS,but Romans could divorce, and remarry, and they did have mistresses, but the mistresses were grounds for divorce,if complained about,or found out about,dependent,or if there emerged little dependents.Divorces were based on the power of the person or which family they came from though as to being granted or disallowed,not heard as it were.
But as to the present day,polygamy exits,and present efforts at anti-polygamy legislation in the US has led some Mormons to emigrate to Canada and Mexico. … Polygamy, and laws concerning polygamy, differ greatly throughout the Islamic world as well,and Polygamy and concubines and breeders continued for quite some time,and even yet polygamy exists even yet today there, and here,There is even yet a present court case being considered in Canada concerning the polygamy of the Mormons in Canada. However, not to wander to a side track we shall return to the main stream,the fact that as of the present day, Priests are supposed to remain unmarried,and celebate,they are not to enjoy polygamy,nor concubines,nor breeders,nor monogamy,nor,shudder,sex,they are to remain celebate,and take such vows.That too evolved,for we see in Rodrigo Borgia, who was elected Pope in 1492, taking the name Alexander VI,he had several acknowledged children, of which Lucrezia and Cesare were best known.Alexander VI had four, and possibly five, children by his long time mistress Vannozza dei Cattani a courtesan of the House of Candia (while she was married to Domenico da Rignano): Giovanni (or Juan), Cesar, and Lucrezia(later known as The Good Time To Be Had By All). Then, Goffredo (or Gioffre or, in Valentian, Jofré) and Ottaviano, who may or may not have been Alexander VI’s(Borgia), then Cardinal Rodrigo(created Cardinal by his uncle, Calixtus III,8th April 1455,),however before he became Pope,in the very least.

However, there are conditions whereby a priest may actually be married, zounds and zooks, yes indeed, within the Catholic Church.How’s this? Well,again part of the definition or a religious community, whether it be an Order, a Congregation, Society or whatever, are the three vows. Canon law specifically mentions the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. These are intrinsic to religious life. Diocesan priests, on the other hand, take no vows. Priests of the Latin Church make a promise of obedience to their bishop and his successors at their ordination. The first act of obedience their bishop asks of them then is celibacy. Logic surely follows then that the only priests who will be called to serve as married clergy
will be those who would not have been called by God for celibate service.There are no vocations which call an individual to take a vow of celibacy with the provision that he/she can later reject that vow.
The sleight of hand is, seminarians or non-catholics can MARRY, AND THEN BE ORDAINED – that’s what we see in Acts of the Apostles and Paul’s Letters… but once ordained a man cannot marry! If your first spouse dies, you cannot marry again. That’s been the constant tradition even in those rites that have married clergy.The Priests leading the charge for a change want to get married AFTER first getting ordained. Most of the married Catholic priests now serving the Church are NOT former Anglican priests, but Eastern Rite priests who were originally ordained
in the Catholic Church. A small percentage of married Eastern Rite priests may be converted Anglican priests, and a higher percentage of married Latin Rite priests are former Anglican priests – but that is still a very small percentage of priests in either rite. In any case, a former Anglican priest – or a former ANYTHING – who has been duly ordained by the Catholic Church is a Catholic priest in good standing and in full communion with the Church.

More continues…….

Pope allows married Anglicans to become Catholic priests in bid to tempt them to defect
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1226449/Pope-allows-married-men-priests-bid-attract-Anglican-recruits.html
By Steve Doughty

You have my blessing: Pope Benedict XVI will allow Anglicans into the Roman Catholic Church
The Roman Catholic Church is to allow married Anglican converts to become priests in a radical concession to tempt them to defect.Church of England bishops who switch allegiance to Rome will be able to ordain them, the Vatican said yesterday.
Married Anglican vicars have been able to convert and join the Rome priesthood since the 1950s, but this is the first time that married non-vicars have been allowed to become priests.The decision to allow Anglican converts to keep their tradition of married priests is a break with rules that have applied in western Catholic churches for nearly 900 years.The Vatican was at pains to insist that it does not mean a break with the celibacy for clergy nor the first step towards a married priesthood.But leading Anglo-Catholics confirmed that CofE bishops who switch loyalty to Rome will have the power to ordain their own priests and that – with permission from the Pope – some of the newly-ordained priests may be married.
The gesture goes alongside a welcome package for Anglicans that will mean that converts will be able to worship according to services from the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer. Services will be re-written to remove references to the Queen as head of the church and to pledge loyalty to the Pope.One Church of England bishop called for negotiations with CofE leaders to allow whole congregations to switch to Rome while keeping the right to continue to use their CofE parish churches.Bishop of Fulham the Right Reverend John Broadhurst said the offer from Rome was ‘extremely impressive’ and added that those who choose to accept ‘have a valid claim on our own heritage in history.’……..

So, we see that there has indeed been some flexibility,and alteration, even yet change, in the former Roman Catholic Church (Papacy), policy of chastity and celebacy.We see that there is indeed change taking place, evolution as it were, but in reality devolution as it is,that change is coming from, and is being brought in, from the outside of itself.And the conditions are such that there is no violation of present church doctrines,that they were not what they are now,within the Roman Catholic church, and so it Can be.But will the present Vatican change the “rules” for all,it seems not, for he has said that he will not allow married priests,married priests as defined by those who have taken vows, and been ordained, within the Roman Catholic Church itself,by it’s rules, by it’s definitions,according to the policies of the church as it was, and so too still is.
There is change, married priests DO exist,but they who have been absorbed, but total change extended to within the Roman Catholic church, will not take place within the present Papacy,but perhaps the next.The door is open for that, it is for the Pope to decide, as the others decided in their day,so it is in the present day.

Secret Squirrel On Marriage By Contractual Periods

Secret Squirrel has previously commented on divorces,on polygamy, and now Secret Squirrel turns his attention to marriages,marriages sans divorce,short marriages, very short ones, 4,5, or 7 year terms to be decided on,as decided on, and thence allow for renewal of said terms in agreement between the partners in these marriages.And so,in doing so, we will have much more stable relationships,and much more agreeable relationships, and solve the problems, of these messy things, that divorces are.Let us look now at stated proposals of marriage by term contract…………….firstly in and at…………

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article2500361.ece

The Times headline reads………..

How to cure seven-year itch? Limit marriage to seven years

“Marilyn Monroe would have approved. The Seven Year Itch, argues Germany’s most glamorous politician, could be cured by making marriage vows valid for only seven years, thus legislating away what is regarded as the most unstable phase of a relationship.The proposal to turn marriage into a kind of time-share arrangement has shocked Germany. It comes from Gabriele Pauli, who is running to become head of the Bavarian conservative Christian Social Union (CSU) party. …………..Her idea would apply only to civil marriages. Vows sworn on the altar, “till death us do part”, would not be amended. Civil marriages would be regarded as a limited seven-year contract. “After that initial period each partner would have to say ‘yes’ again in order to prolong the marriage,” she said. “If they do, there is no reason why marriage should not end up as a lifelong partnership, but in the meantime we will have saved the financial and emotional cost of many divorces.” …..Johann Reisel, head of Catholic marriage counselling in Bavaria, said: “It sounds to me like renewing a mobile phone contract,” he said. “This is just a random number; statistics show that marriages tend to last either three or four years, or significantly longer than seven years.” …………….Although conventional wisdom is that every third marriage in Germany ends in divorce, the reality is worse. By one calculation, 43 per cent of marriages in western Germany (including Bavaria) end in divorce. In 1970, only 15 per cent ended this way…..”

And yet more at on the same contractual marriage period contract at……..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482736/Limit-marriage-just-seven-years-urges-twice-divorced-politician-turned-dominatrix.html#ixzz16hH4XbvT

‘Limit marriage to just seven years’ urges twice-divorced politician turned dominatrix

“A seven-year limit should be placed on marriages to ‘avoid financial and emotional heartache’, according to a twice-divorced politician infamous for posing in dominatrix gear.According to Gabriele Pauli, a prominent member of Bavaria’s conservative party, marriages should only be extended after seven years if the couples agree.”The seven year itch often becomes a reality in modern marriages which frequently go through a period of crisis after this time,” said the
50-year-old.”A time limit would enable couples to save the divorce costs and avoid a great deal of heartache,” she added. “It’s time that politicians stopped regarding marriage as a super-intact institution and face the facts.”She argued that,
since a high proportion of marriages end in divorce and many people stay married only for fear of separation or for financial reasons………..”

Well let us consider.The actual divorce rate (the history of divorce is a long one. It has, as French philosopher Voltaire put it, likely been around since the advent of formalized marriage,but in actuality since the 16th century, when Protestants
brought it in) is 50%,this has been seen in America,and now Germany being at 43%, in actual figures.Let use consider now, that the Marriage rate,in any particular given year,is for the USA 9.8/1000,the UK 6.8/1000,and a general average world wide 6.5/1000.The Divorce rate,in any particular given year,is for the USA 4.9/1000,the UK 3.08/1000,and a general average world wide 1.3/1000.

These figures are much more interesting than the percentage of population figures usually presented,for one must take in to account the actual divorces per year, versus the actual marriages per year, to arrive at the proper figure.So,the American divorce rate is actually then 50%,the UK also 50%(on the brighter side Australia is at 33%).The stated average length of marriage in the USA, before divorce, is given at being 8 years.The probability of a first marriage ending in separation or divorce within 5 years is 20 percent, but the probability of a
premarital cohabitation breaking up within 5 years is 49 percent. After 10 years, the probability of a first marriage ending is 33 percent,compared with 62 percent for cohabitations.Divorce is very much a heavy reality.

So to arrive at these divorce figures, we go with the rate of marriages, per 1000 people, and the rate of divorce at 1000 people….and this is provably,for America, a figure of 50%.Obviously there is a great problem here, at 50%. Also there are
a collossal rate of divorces after a second marriage, in short there the figures show that there is an actual 10% success rate of divorces who remarry. With divorce, property and the fiscal side of things are divided up, in some countries per a
legally binding ipso facto marriage contract, a pre nuptual agreement,pre nup as it were, but in others it is a direct 50% regardless, and also may contain such items(in all cases), as child support.

Marriage is a man made social construction anyway, so no real reason for anyone to be shocked by changing the rules.As a matter of fact,biblical marriages abounded with multiple partners,females,polygamy no less, massive polygamy, but allowed within the bounds and conventions of man, of man the thing that was marriage then with man made rules and regulations of it, the institution of,principle of,marriage.

I was perusing the book, Old Twentieth by Joey Haldeman, and one of the more interesting ideas were the formation of 10-year “marriage” contracts between immortal humans. Basically, people who lived forever needed to find a way out of “’till death do us part”.It seemed they realized there was a problem.Recall even Zeus and Hera divorced.Again in Zardoz we see the problem with immortality, as a life sentence of anything, including punishment, is forever as it were, and leads to boredom in the least.However, we suffer from reality, and a shorter lifespan, but it seems we also cannot cope with the death do us part concept.

But what of a marriage contract,as it were, say You agree to marry someone, with a base contract of 4 years?After 7 years,(or 4, or 5, depending on the decided period of time), you can either choose to renew your marriage or part amicably, with whatever you brought into the partnership, and an equal division of anything generated during the partnership’s 7 year-term (business, residence, loans, etc.),any children so had in the relationship or out of it, being decided by amicable
pre nup agreement covering such items as child support,just as it is presently in any given divorce.

There are many advantages to a short agreed upon marriage term……… Here are the 6 best reasons why:

1. Either could always leave,at the end of the termed agreement, so you’ll always value each other in your agreement.

2. You won’t take the relationship for granted – much like life & death,you’ll have to constantly work at it,if you wish to keep, as in renew, the arrangement.

3. You’ll have incentive to work out problems if you each wish to keep it, as in renew it.

4. Divorce, this could be abolished in a say 4-5 year agreed term as it would take that time for a divorce to take,and all things would be covered by the legally binding agreement as set by legal sociologically accepted conventions,the legally
binding document be what ever it may be. hold(4-5 being advantageous compared with say the 7 year plan).

5. Forever is a long time… a REALLY long time, but if you’re committed to someone, why not recommit your vows to them after

4 years,after 5 years,after 7 years.After 20 years, you’ll have committed to them as many as 5 times,agreeably so.

6. There’s still a commitment. Whether it’s a day, a month, a year, or the rest of your life, you’re committed to someone, so setting a limit to it doesn’t cheapen it; it makes the commitment have definition and scope,and with renewals,as
much of a commitment either of you, or both, want.

So there we have it, a cure for the many messy divorces,messy lives, by the legal institution of marriage, marriage by contract, marriage by termed contract,by renewable termed contract,perhaps the better new wave of the future.