2008 Should Priest & Bishops be allowed to marry?

[The_Prodigal]

Perhaps the problem is not married men becoming priests. The problem is the state of marriage today. When society has healthy marriages vocations to the priesthood are not a problem. When marriage is in peril so are vocations.

That seems to me a very perceptive idea. In marriage as in the priesthood there needs to be a total commitment.

 

[The_Prodigal]

I am a Latin rite Catholic. In general I would not object to married men becoming priests if the church chose to modify its discipline.

Some have raised the issue of salaries; there is no question they would have to increase. I think more to the point is that bishops would have to consider family situations when making appointments. It’s easier for a single priest to “pack his toothbrush” and move to another parish than for an entire family.

 

[bilop]

I am a Latin rite Catholic. In general I would not object to married men becoming priests if the church chose to modify its discipline.

Some have raised the issue of salaries; there is no question they would have to increase. I think more to the point is that bishops would have to consider family situations when making appointments. It’s easier for a single priest to “pack his toothbrush” and move to another parish than for an entire family.

I think it would vary greatly by area.

In areas where parishes are dense (like in NY where there is a Catholic church every few miles, or even every few blocks), moving need not be too traumatic.

In areas where parishes are thinly spread, it could be more of an issue.

God Bless

 

[fix]

There have certainly been disciplines that were unwise, whether at the time they were enacted or which became unwise over the course of time. Is an unwise choice a wrong choice? Yes and no, depending on what you mean by “wrong”.

By wrong I mean contrary to the faith.

 

[sseason]

When an Anglican or Lutheran priest that is married converts and becomes a Catholic priest does he have to then take a vow of celibacy?
My parish had a married Lutheran priest for about 10 years and he and his wife never had any children after his ordination. Just curious.

NO, they do not have to take a vow of celibacy. We have a WONDERFUL Luthern convert at our parish and he has 3 children (I think 3) . I love him, he is so very reverent at Mass and is a great asset to our faith.
I would think that taking a vow of celibacy if you were already married would contradict your vows you made at matrimony. But I don’t have any facts to quote on this. Sorry.

 

[sseason]

I don’t think I get this.

Can you cite an example of church discipline (outside of this present issue of clerical celibacy) which might help illustrate what you are trying to state here?

I don’t see how changing a discipline will contradict the faith.

Other examples of Church discipline are:

-the length of time one has to fast before receiving the Eucharist (it used to be 12, then 3, now only one hour prior)

-Abstaining from meat on fridays. Catholics used to abstain EVERY friday, not just during lent.

…there are several others. Hope that helps.
None of these contradict the faith.

 

[bilop]

By wrong I mean contrary to the faith.

If a discipline could be changed so as to be contrary to the Faith, wouldn’t that make it a dogma or doctrine?

God Bless

 

[sseason]

None of that contradicts what I said.

From New Advent:

Sorry fix, I guess I misunderstood you. I do like the quote from New Advent.

 

[elvisman]

Women were not mentioned in this except for being the wife. The issue of women being ordained is ended. Thank God it won’t happen. I did ask when I started this thread that the issue of women not be used.

My mistake, Kathleen. I think I was relying to another thread.

 

[fix]

If a discipline could be changed so as to be contrary to the Faith, wouldn’t that make it a dogma or doctrine?

God Bless

I am not following you. Has there been a Church discipline that contradicts the faith? I do not know of any but am open to finding out?

 

[bilop]

I am not following you. Has there been a Church discipline that contradicts the faith? I do not know of any but am open to finding out?

What I’m saying is that if some Church “policy” (for want of a better word) is such that changing it would contradict the faith, than that policy seems to be doctrine, not discipline.

Disciplines, by their nature, are things the Church can change as it sees fit, so it is hard for me to imagine how a discipline could contradict the faith?

God Bless

 

[fix]

What I’m saying is that if some Church “policy” (for want of a better word) is such that changing it would contradict the faith, than that policy seems to be doctrine, not discipline.

Disciplines, by their nature, are things the Church can change as it sees fit, so it is hard for me to imagine how a discipline could contradict the faith?

God Bless

I go back to the link:

The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i.e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching. Infallibility is directly related to the teaching office (magisterium), and although this office and the disciplinary power reside in the same ecclesiastical authorities, the disciplinary power does not necessarily depend directly on the teaching office. Teaching pertains to the order of truth; legislation to that of justice and prudence. Doubtless, in last analysis all ecclesiastical laws are based on certain fundamental truths, but as laws their purpose is neither to confirm nor to condemn these truths. It does not seem, therefore, that the Church needs any special privilege of infallibility to prevent her from enacting laws contradictory of her doctrine. To claim that disciplinary infallibility consists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infallibility, which the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. Moreover, it would make the application of laws to their end the object of a positive judgment of the Church; this would not only be useless but would become a perpetual obstacle to disciplinary reform.

From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law;