Dean McFalls, Stockton Priest, Fathers Child And Steps Down From Clergy

[SMGS127]

Protestant? I don’t classify myself as such. But regardless, what difference would it make? All I’m doing is showing what the Catechism says.

What that means is that the actions of a priest when acting in the man of Christ (more appropriately, when Christ works through the priest) are confirmed by God. Thus, Confessions to priests are valid, and consecration of the bread and wine at Mass by priests are valid, but Confessions to random-person-on-the-street are not valid, and same for consecration by random-person-in-Mass. Angels cannot act in person of Christ either.

It does not mean that their behavior on Earth is that of Christ or infallible in any sense of the word.

 

[gus]

Well remember it wasn’t always that way. And the church lets Episcopals that become catholic be priests if I’m correct and they are married. How’s that working out and how did things work out when the priests were married? The bible simply says I believe a Bishop is to be the husband of one wife. No divorce.

Not a good example as the vast majority of Anglican priests who managed to become Catholic priests were mature with grown or no families.
That would be the equiviant of older members of the deaconate being allowed to the priesthood.
Its something that’s may be acceptable to even sn oldie like me. That team would both have to be committed.
Accepting young married priests it not worth the trouble it would cause.

 

[gus]

Protestant? I don’t classify myself as such. But regardless, what difference would it make? All I’m doing is showing what the Catechism says.

Exactly true when acting in persona christi
Unfortunately clerics in their every day lives are fallen creatures in need of a confessor just like anyone else.
The Catholic Church makes no claim any human even a Saint. as being impeccable .
Another strawman goes up on flames.

 

[VanSensei]

Thankfully he took matters into his own hands and stepped down.

 

[John_Lazarus]

Priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. It could be dispensed with tomorrow, if the Spirit so moved the Holy Father. Remember, too, that an unmarried priesthood is a Latin discipline, at that: the Eastern Churches have married clergy (not bishops, as they are all from the monastic orders), and they are no less Catholic than micks like me.

The Church, in her wisdom, may eventually decide that the issue of clerical celibacy in the West may be revisited, and may perhaps adopt the Eastern model.

 

[manualman]

I am always hearing people discuss the issue of priestly celibacy being done away with. Personally, I think it is a terrible idea. I don’t see how a priest could do all that he does and manage a wife and kids too.

Good point, but it overlooks a possibility not much discussed in the church: the potential to ordain as priests deacons with a decade or more of faithful ministry experience first. Given what it takes to become a deacon plus an additional 10 years, this almost certainly would make such candidates beyond the age of having children at home. Such an approach wouldn’t replace the celibate diocesan priest, but it might lessen their workload. It could be similar to the Eastern catholics in that such priests typically wouldn’t become bishops or Cardinals. Except in cases of shortages, probably not even pastors. It’s tough out there for priests these days and I wonder if the idea has been considered. I haven’t heard this idea or approach ever discussed before.

 

[opus101]

Priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. It could be dispensed with tomorrow, if the Spirit so moved the Holy Father. Remember, too, that an unmarried priesthood is a Latin discipline, at that: the Eastern Churches have married clergy (not bishops, as they are all from the monastic orders), and they are no less Catholic than micks like me.

The Church, in her wisdom, may eventually decide that the issue of clerical celibacy in the West may be revisited, and may perhaps adopt the Eastern model.

Even so, once ordained, a single priest would not be able to marry; and once widowed, he would not be able to remarry.

 

[Mulligan2]

I’m a bit confused by some of the points of this story. Can anyone provide further clarification?

Apparently Fr. McFalls stepped down as pastor. If he had not voluntarily done so, would his bishop have been required to have removed him? If I am understanding correctly, Fr. McFalls stepped down because he fathered a child, not necessarily because he broke his vow of celibacy. If Fr. McFalls had broken his vow of celibacy - but had not fathered a child - could he have gone to confession, repented his sins, and continued serving as a priest and pastor?

 

[Starrsmother]

I’m a bit confused by some of the points of this story. Can anyone provide further clarification?

Apparently Fr. McFalls stepped down as pastor. If he had not voluntarily done so, would his bishop have been required to have removed him? If I am understanding correctly, Fr. McFalls stepped down because he fathered a child, not necessarily because he broke his vow of celibacy. If Fr. McFalls had broken his vow of celibacy - but had not fathered a child - could he have gone to confession, repented his sins, and continued serving as a priest and pastor?

I mean this respectfully, but isn’t this simply semantics? He fathered a child because he broke his vow of celibacy. Or did you mean, what would happen if he broke his vow of celibacy and admitted to it but no child was fathered? Now that’s a good question! How does the church handle such things? I suspect he’d at least be transferred and certainly have to confess and do penance—but would it automatically mean he’d be de-frocked? I wonder…