Do Protestant churches handle dating and sex issues better than Catholic parishes?

[Rach620]

And unfortunately, us single people will have to discover that for ourselves rather than take your word for it. After all, you yourself had to discover it for yourself rather than take the word of married people for it.

Can you honestly say that the pain of being single is just as great as the pains your marriage has brought you?

I will tell two stories: (1) I remember being introduced to a woman at my new parish. She was about 30. The person introducing us said, “Jane just got married”. And Jane let out this huge sigh and said, “Finally”. (2) A man interviewing me recently for a job asked me about a possible call to the priesthood. When I told him I used to be in seminary but am no longer, he said to me, “I remember vocational discernment and limbo. It was painful”. He said it was such a relief to get married.

And of course, there are those studies which show married people are happier than single people. Why do you think that is?

I think it is primarily this: marriage satisfies a very profound desire - I would say the most powerful natural desire we have. Married people have unfulfilled desires - but none as powerful as the desire for marriage and family.

Yes, each person must discover this for themselves. Perhaps the single person who felt more pain in their single life might experience greater happiness and fewer struggles when they are married. My only caution in all of this is not to pin all or most of one’s hopes for happiness on marriage, as this can easily lead to disappointment.

I don’t disagree what marriage brings “relief” and the fulfillment of desires. It does not surprise me that married people are “happier” than unmarried. Marriage involves companionship and the gift of self, two things which every human person has been created for, in a very real, practical, and physical way. The desire for one’s spouse can be very powerful, but in the end it is not an end in itself–it is meant to teach us to desire Christ and to love Him in the same way.

While I do experience very profound happiness in this one part of my life, marriage by no means puts an end to my spiritual struggles and in some ways has introduced painful problems that would not have even been on the table in my unmarried life. There are new questions and concerns, and married people experience struggles in their married lives that are altogether different in kind from the struggles experienced by the unmarried, but not necessarily more or less painful in degree. Again, what I said about “custom-made crosses” applies to each one of us at every stage of our lives.

Whatever our struggles and pains, we are all called to happiness in each stage of our lives, and it is up to each of us to discover how God wills for us to be happy in the here and now. “Vocation” involves a much broader, far-reaching view of our lives than strictly whether we are married, ordained, or vowed religious. God has a plan for the entirety of each of our lives, a plan that will bring us to happiness if we cooperate with it and trust Him. Learning trust and cooperation can be a painful process, whether we are married or not.

 

[Rach620]

I just re-read this quote, and I disagree with its applicability here.

JP2 says “the Church ought to apply herself to understanding the situations within which marriage and the family are lived today … the Church can also be guided to a more profound understanding of the inexhaustible mystery of marriage and the family by the circumstances, the questions and the anxieties and hopes of the young people, married couples and parents of today.” The term “The Church” as it is used here implies the Magisterium. The term is used in many senses - for instance, Vatican II often uses it in the sense of corporate sense, that of the entire “People of God”. But here, JP2 resorts to a more traditional use of the term (one that, it must be said, was also used in Vatican II, albeit not as frequently) - namely, the visible, hierarchical element of the Church.

I understand your point. Going back and reading this particular section, in context, I still disagree. While in some places JP2 is clearly referring to the Magisterium, I don’t think that every use of “the church” (in my copy it’s not capitalized, for whatever reason ) refers strictly to the Magisterium.

The section directly following what I quoted goes on to discuss “evangelical discernment,” where the Holy Father says:

The discernment effected by the church becomes the offering of an orientation in order that the entire truth and the full dignity of marriage and the family may be preserved and realized.
This discernment is accomplished through the sense of faith, which is a gift that the Spirit gives to all the faithful, and is therefore the work of the whole church according to the diversity of the various gifts and charisms that, together with and according to the responsibility proper to each one, work together for a more profound understanding and activation of the word of God. The church, therefore, does not accomplish this discernment only through the pastors, who teach in the name and with the power of Christ, but also through the laity: Christ ‘made them his witnesses and gave them understanding of the faith and the grace of speech (cf. Acts 2:17-18; Rv. 19:10), so that the power of the Gospel might shine forth in their daily social and family life.’

JP2 goes on to note carefully how the “sense of faith” does and does not apply to this situation, and how it ought to be formed, but he still does seem to claim here that the need for the church to “apply herself to understanding the situations within which marriage and the family are lived today” involves the “evangelical discernment” of all the Church, including the laity.

Notice the “catch terms” and “catch phrases” JP2 uses: “the questions and the anxieties and the hopes” of the young, the married, and parents. This is straight out of the first sentence of Gaudium et Spes: “The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age” (p.1). This is combined with a statement from Apostolicam Actuositatem: “The laity should accustom themselves to working in the parish in union with their priests, bringing to the Church community their own and the world’s problems as well as questions concerning human salvation” (p.10). What JP2 says in FC is like a fusion of these two excerpts from Vatican II (he was a master at this - he did write “Sources of Revelation”, after all).

This is why I think you are misinterpreting FC: JP2 says, “It is, in fact, to the families of our times that the Church must bring the unchangeable and ever new Gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it is the families involved in the present conditions of the world that are called to accept and to live the plan of God that pertains to them.” In other words, it is the priests who rule, sanctify, and teach the laity - it is not a democratic process where all rule, sanctify, and teach together or equally. This is laid out in Section 1 of Presbyterorum Ordinis.

I am not suggesting that it is a democratic process. I understand the place of the Magisterium and the hierarchical priesthood in shaping the teaching of the Church, but I am still convinced that in this encyclical the Holy Father is calling on faithful married Catholics to contribute their specific wisdom in this area to the evangelization of the world on the topics of marriage and family.

My reading of this is that the Holy Father is referring to ALL of “the families of our times,” not strictly Catholic families in the Church. It is the duty of the whole Church, laity and ordained priests alike, to bring the Gospel message of the sanctity of marriage and family life to the world. I could be wrong on that, but earlier in the intro when he states his audience, he says this:

Illuminated by the faith that gives her an understanding of all the truth concerning the great value of marriage and the family and their deepest meaning, the churchonce again feels the pressing need to proclaim the Gospel, that is the ‘good news,’ to all people without exception, in particular to all those who are called to marriage and are preparing for it, to all married couples and parents in the world.

This is an interesting discussion we’re having about the encyclical–I’m enjoying it.

 

[Michael_Saint]

There are new questions and concerns, and married people experience struggles in their married lives that are altogether different in kind from the struggles experienced by the unmarried, but not necessarily more or less painful in degree.

I don’t think “in kind” and “in degree” need be mutually exclusive. I think single life is a different kind of pain that is also painful to a greater (and more fundamental and essential) degree.

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree - at least until I get married (or perhaps even after I get married ).

 

[Rach620]

As for married TOB speakers, we must distinguish between their presentations and their own devotional or spiritual lives. I agree with your argument that pastoral presentations focusing heavily on sex and marriage is good and necessary. However, if those same TOB speakers focus to that same extent or degree in their own personal lives of prayer and study, then that, I would say, would be a problem. I don’t know if any do - and I am not going to speculate on that.

Agreed.

There is a real crisis in the priesthood right now, as you well know. Some of the younger priests are changing that, but even then, homiletics as it is currently taught at seminaries is abysmal. We are not forming great or even good preachers.

Agreed, and this is frustrating and saddening. Even the most clearly orthodox preachers I’ve seen often have very flawed homiletic styles. They are committed to preaching the truth, but perhaps not always “in love” or in a way that is accessible and understandable to those who are listening.

Priests should fall madly in love with TOB, because it has such a profound relevance to their own lives and to their own ministries. But they, like many, have received the impression, mainly from the “popular presentations”, that TOB is primarily for married folk, not celibates. I don’t know anyone who does a great job teaching the joys and glories of celibacy through TOB and uses it as their centerpiece (which I do - shameless personal tooting of my own horn [sorry!]). As a result, most priests do not use it in their own personal spiritual journey, and if they get into it at all, it is usually to teach married people, not to benefit personally from it themselves.

Agreed. My hope would be that priests would seek to delve deeper into this area, to give a positive account for celibacy and the sign of the ordained priest or religious man or woman in this world.

 

[Michael_Saint]

While in some places JP2 is clearly referring to the Magisterium, I don’t think that every use of “the church” (in my copy it’s not capitalized, for whatever reason ) refers strictly to the Magisterium.
. . .
I am still convinced that in this encyclical the Holy Father is calling on faithful married Catholics to contribute their specific wisdom in this area to the evangelization of the world on the topics of marriage and family.
. . .
It is the duty of the whole Church, laity and ordained priests alike, to bring the Gospel message of the sanctity of marriage and family life to the world.

I agree with many of your points.

I think that by saying “The Church”, he is not referring to the Magisterium per se, but he is speaking about the Church as an institution or more accurately a “society” comprised of people which functions in a certain way with a division of roles, rather than in the egalitarian sense of “The People of God”, where “there is neither Jew nor Greek, male or female, bishop or layman - for all are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). I was not clear about this before.

The laity contribute to this, but they have a particular role in the Body as outlined in other places, including Vatican II, while the clergy have theirs. As long as that is respected, then there is no problem - and in fact it is a real benefit - to doing what JP2 outlines.

It is the duty of us all to bring the Gospel message to the world. However, we must be careful not to fall into the trap of “clericalizing the laity” or “laicizing the clergy” as JP2 and Ratzinger often pointed out. Ratzinger said “a member of the lay faithful who, over a long period of time or over a lifetime, actually exercises the pastoral duties proper to a priest, with the exception of celebrating Mass and sacramental confession, is in fact no longer a true lay person and has lost his true identity in the life and mission of the Church. In fact, the tasks and functions of a “supplementary service” have frequently become tasks and functions belonging to a new type of “ministry” which overlaps that of priests.” The pastoral duties proper to a priest involve preaching and teaching Christ’s truth to the Catholic faithful (ie. speaking at conferences or sacramental preparation, etc.). So we must be careful about this extreme (which I think you have seen for yourself - I know I have).

Apostolicam Actuositatem and Lumen Gentium said what distinguishes the laity is their secular character. The laity are to preach the Gospel primarily in the marketplace, the workplace, the sportsfields, etc., while the clergy are to preach the Gospel to the Christians gathered in prayer and in faith formation. The priests and religious primarily minister to the Church, while the laity primarily minister to the World.

Like I said, as long as everyone’s roles are respected, all will go well.

This is an interesting discussion we’re having about the encyclical–I’m enjoying it.

I agree! And so am I!

 

[Rach620]

I agree with many of your points.

I think that by saying “The Church”, he is not referring to the Magisterium per se, but he is speaking about the Church as an institution or more accurately a “society” comprised of people which functions in a certain way with a division of roles, rather than in the egalitarian sense of “The People of God”, where “there is neither Jew nor Greek, male or female, bishop or layman - for all are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). I was not clear about this before.

Yes, I’d say this is how I understand his use of the term “Church” in that passage. Some of the responsibilities he describes pertain to the Magisterium; others to the laity. Overall, the proclamation of the truth of marriage and the family to the world is the duty of all Christians. Each will accomplish this in their own proper way.

The laity contribute to this, but they have a particular role in the Body as outlined in other places, including Vatican II, while the clergy have theirs. As long as that is respected, then there is no problem - and in fact it is a real benefit - to doing what JP2 outlines.

It is the duty of us all to bring the Gospel message to the world. However, we must be careful not to fall into the trap of “clericalizing the laity” or “laicizing the clergy” as JP2 and Ratzinger often pointed out. Ratzinger said “a member of the lay faithful who, over a long period of time or over a lifetime, actually exercises the pastoral duties proper to a priest, with the exception of celebrating Mass and sacramental confession, is in fact no longer a true lay person and has lost his true identity in the life and mission of the Church. In fact, the tasks and functions of a “supplementary service” have frequently become tasks and functions belonging to a new type of “ministry” which overlaps that of priests.” The pastoral duties proper to a priest involve preaching and teaching Christ’s truth to the Catholic faithful (ie. speaking at conferences or sacramental preparation, etc.). So we must be careful about this extreme (which I think you have seen for yourself - I know I have).

Apostolicam Actuositatem and Lumen Gentium said what distinguishes the laity is their secular character. The laity are to preach the Gospel primarily in the marketplace, the workplace, the sportsfields, etc., while the clergy are to preach the Gospel to the Christians gathered in prayer and in faith formation. The priests and religious primarily minister to the Church, while the laity primarily minister to the World.

Like I said, as long as everyone’s roles are respected, all will go well.

Thank you so much for posting this! Where did that quote from Ratzinger come from, if I might ask? I couldn’t agree more.

This is such a problem today, in part because of the vocations crisis. In some areas there just aren’t enough priests to minister to the Church, so lay ministers have picked up the slack. More often, though, lay ministers think it is their proper role to minister to the laity in certain areas (youth ministry and marriage ministries, for example), and this leads to incredible difficulties. The proper vocation of the laity is not well-understood these days, and all of us who are engaged in some kind of “lay ministry” need to avoid falling into this trap of misunderstanding our proper vocations.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Thank you so much for posting this! Where did that quote from Ratzinger come from, if I might ask? I couldn’t agree more.

This is such a problem today, in part because of the vocations crisis. In some areas there just aren’t enough priests to minister to the Church, so lay ministers have picked up the slack. More often, though, lay ministers think it is their proper role to minister to the laity in certain areas (youth ministry and marriage ministries, for example), and this leads to incredible difficulties. The proper vocation of the laity is not well-understood these days, and all of us who are engaged in some kind of “lay ministry” need to avoid falling into this trap of misunderstanding our proper vocations.

Indeed! I find this misconception quite common even on these forums.

I know many lay ministers who get so busy “saving souls” that they neglect their wives and children. I know one man whose wife recently left him because of this. He got an award a few years back for all his “work in the Church”. It is a scandal that he was ever given this award - but so many Catholics (even Catholic leaders) today really think men who serve the Church, even at the expense of their children and marriages, are doing a great “work for the Lord”. This is a common error in the Steubenville / charismatic crowd. In fact, some of the theology profs are examples of it (I won’t go any further on this point). This is an example of the “Protestantization” of the Church. Our defence for married lay ministers (and permanent deacons with young children) who get busy like this are the same arguments used by Protestants in defense of a married clergy. Is it any wonder, then, why so many on these forums are calling for a married priesthood?

I will give you the link to the Ratzinger quote: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=344&repos=1&subrepos=&searchid=292728

 

[The_Bucket]

I for one could do without much of the lay ministry out there. I think that guys like Jason Evert (and West before his whole Hefner/JPII thing) have made some decent contributions in this arena, but at a certain point it gets to be too much. I’m hopeful that many young men who are inspired to deliver similar messages, but maybe not so much on sexuality, look towards the priesthood because we are definitely short of strong and well-spoken priests. Oy, what I would give for another Fulton Sheen!

 

[Michael_Saint]

I for one could do without much of the lay ministry out there. I think that guys like Jason Evert (and West before his whole Hefner/JPII thing) have made some decent contributions in this arena, but at a certain point it gets to be too much. I’m hopeful that many young men who are inspired to deliver similar messages, but maybe not so much on sexuality, look towards the priesthood because we are definitely short of strong and well-spoken priests. Oy, what I would give for another Fulton Sheen!

West was the same before the Nightline segment as he was after. I am going to start a new thread about this.

Yes, I agree with you here, The Bucket, on young men being inspired to the priesthood. The problem is, the more young men see these chastity speakers traveling the country and teaching audiences of thousands and reaching tens of thousands before going home to their wives and children, being a celibate priest in a small parish of 200 families seems a lot less “important” (yes, celibacy is still a pretty huge “sacrifice” - despite the fact that it is the “higher” call). What West is doing seems like a pretty attractive “gig” in comparison.

Sorry, but I really do believe that will allure some (not all, of course, or even most) away from a possible priestly vocation. At no other time in the Western Church (the Eastern practice is a whole different ball of wax) could a person have his cake and eat it too to this degree (ministry [including ordination] and family life), and do so licitly (most priests in the twelfth century had concubines, but this was, of course, immoral).