Fla.'s 'Father Oprah' joins Episcopal Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeusVeritas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But was it not historically the case that annulments were granted to royalty if their were no male heirs. for example, with Eleanor of Acquitaine and Louis VII of France.
And today, annulments are granted for reasons which are grounded in psycho-babble, such as I didn;t know what I was doing fifteen years ago when I got married and so my consent at that time was defective.
Let’s start from the back forward. If one’s consent is defective, there is no valid marriage.

Annulments have never been granted for the sole reason of having no male heirs. This was the problem that Henry had. He wanted this anulment under these reasons. Annulments were granted because most of the time the marriages were marriages of convenience. That is not a valid marriage. Many royal families married to unite kingdoms and to keep the power and money in the family. Many were related. The Church could find a valid reason to declare the marriage null and void.

But this has nothing to do with Fr. Cutie. He is not married and if he attempts a marriage, such a marriage is invalid unless he receives a dispensation from the promise of celibacy.

The rule is simple. To be validly married you cannot be
  1. Already married.
  2. A deacon, priest or bishop whose promise of celibacy is still in effect.
  3. A religious brother or cloistered nun in a solemn vow of celibacy.
Fr. Cutie falls under number 2.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Let’s start from the back forward. If one’s consent is defective, there is no valid marriage.
This is a loophole since it can be claimed twenty years after you were married, that your recollection was that your consent was incomplete.
 
And the case of Eleanor of Acquitaine and Louis VII of France?
Their marriage was a marriage of convenience. He did not love her. He wanted a male heir to consolidate the power of both families.

This was a common reason for marrying in the past and probably today too.

But let’s not turn this thread into a discussion on annulment and marriage.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
wcbstv.com/topstories/archbishop.timothy.dolan.2.991738.html
Timothy Dolan spoke with CBS 2 HD as he settled into his new home.

After a tour of his new office, Dolan answered questions about the issue of priests and marriage.

“Priest celibacy, while a jewel, is not church doctrine. It is just discipline,” Dolan said. "Could discussion lead to a change in discipline? Sure it could.

Here’s my question:
Given the fact that it could change at any time, why should a 40 year old man give up the opportunity to get married and have children if that is what he truly desires and then discover 30 years later, when it is too late, that it is no longer a sin?
Because the sinfullness would NOT have changed for him.

This hypothetical 40-year-old would have voluntarily promised before God that he would give up wife and family for the sake of the Church.

He would have made that promise, having known for a decade or more, that he would be called upon to do so, and what that entailed.

He would have further known (for a decade or more) that prior to receiving ordination, he could leave at any time and pursue marriage; however, he would not be free to do so afterward.

And he would still have made that promise. Before God.

If subsequent seminarians were to be allowed not to be celibate, that would have nothing to do with him. He knew what he was getting into.
 
Because the sinfullness would NOT have changed for him.

This hypothetical 40-year-old would have voluntarily promised before God that he would give up wife and family for the sake of the Church.

He would have made that promise, having known for a decade or more, that he would be called upon to do so, and what that entailed.

He would have further known (for a decade or more) that prior to receiving ordination, he could leave at any time and pursue marriage; however, he would not be free to do so afterward.

And he would still have made that promise. Before God.

If subsequent seminarians were to be allowed not to be celibate, that would have nothing to do with him. He knew what he was getting into.
Eddie has it, in a nutshell. Let’s not confuse the issue by throwing in religious vows. Let’s pretend, for a moment, that there is no such thing as religious life so that we do not confuse priests who are religious with priests who are secular.

Let’s just talk about priests who are secular, be they diocesan, FSSP, SSPX or some other organization of priests.

If we speak about the period of formation, in the USA the normal period of formation for priests is four to six years after graduating from college. The USCCB requires that secular priests attain either a Master’s in Theology or a Master’s in Divinity. The Theology degree is an academic degree and the Divinity degree is a terminal professional degree.

Usually, at the end of third year a man is ordained a transitional deacon. In the rite of ordination the deacon to be is asked if he promises obedience to the bishop and if he promises celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. If he answers yes to both of those questions, his future is sealed. He is celibate forever.

The night before his priestly ordination he must write a letter of intent. This letter must be written in his own hand. It cannot be typed or done on a computer. In this letter the deacon (remember he was ordained a deacon the previous year) must write that he understands the obligation that he is about to assume, that he does it of his own free will, that he has no reservations, that he has no known impediments and that he truly believes and is completely convinced that the salvation of his soul is only possible if he becomes a priest. These words are written on a card that he is asked to read aloud in the presence of the bishop, his seminary rector and his peers. After he reads them, he must copy them in his own hand and sign it.

In Fr. Cutie’s case, he entered the seminary from high school. Therefore, he was 18 when he entered the minor seminary where he majored in philosophy and another academic subject. From there he went to St. Vincent de Paul in Boynton Beach, FL. This is the major seminary of the Archdiocese of Miami. He spent four years there as a theological student and a year as a transitional deacon and earned his Master of Arts degree in theology.

It is always possible for a man to rethink his decision years later. It’s even possible for a man to believe that he made a serioius mistake. This would not be the first time that this has happened. When this happens there is the possibility of a dispensation from the promise of celibacy, if the Holy Father believes that there was a serious mistake.

Anyone who enters the seminary has all this time and steps to discern their call to a life of celibacy. Even if one beleives that one has made a serious error of judgment, there is the appeal to the Holy Father for a dispensation.

However, one must also be obedient. Obedience means that one must go through the process in an honest way. One must also accept the decision of the Church after submitting one’s request for a dispensation.

The key here is always obedience.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Because the sinfullness would NOT have changed for him.

This hypothetical 40-year-old would have voluntarily promised before God that he would give up wife and family for the sake of the Church.

He would have made that promise, having known for a decade or more, that he would be called upon to do so, and what that entailed.

He would have further known (for a decade or more) that prior to receiving ordination, he could leave at any time and pursue marriage; however, he would not be free to do so afterward.

And he would still have made that promise. Before God.

If subsequent seminarians were to be allowed not to be celibate, that would have nothing to do with him. He knew what he was getting into.
He’s not hypothetical. He’s Alberto Cutie. When he decided to give up marriage he was probably 20 years old and did not have a girlfriend. Some guys can make that promise and stay with it. Some can’t. We probably will have another pope 30 years from now, maybe even sooner and it’s very possible that the rules will change. How could something be a sin now and not be a sin later? Jesus chose Peter and Peter was married.

When you say “Because the sinfullness would NOT have changed for him” why does it change when the church says that it changes? Did Jesus make a mistake when He chose Peter?
 
He’s not hypothetical. He’s Alberto Cutie. When he decided to give up marriage he was probably 20 years old and did not have a girlfriend. Some guys can make that promise and stay with it. Some can’t. We probably will have another pope 30 years from now, maybe even sooner and it’s very possible that the rules will change. How could something be a sin now and not be a sin later? Jesus chose Peter and Peter was married.

When you say “Because the sinfullness would NOT have changed for him” why does it change when the church says that it changes? Did Jesus make a mistake when He chose Peter?
It’s already been answered, the problem is that if a priest finds himself in this situation, he should remain obedient and go through the channels to take the next step. This Fr. did not. That’s a double whammy: he promised Obedience as well as celibacy.

In any case, as I said before, a change in the discipline will not affect a promise already made before God. Breaking that promise would STILL be a sin; it matters not whether others are still required to make it.

There is a difference between ordaining men who are married and allowing clergy to get married. The Orthodox churches and, in some situations, Catholics, allow the first. The second was not practiced before the Reformation.

P.S. We may well have another pope well before thirty years from now. Still, celibacy has been around nigh on 1,000 years. Don’t hold your breath waiting for it to go away.
 
It’s already been answered, the problem is that if a priest finds himself in this situation, he should remain obedient and go through the channels to take the next step. This Fr. did not. That’s a double whammy: he promised Obedience as well as celibacy.

In any case, as I said before, a change in the discipline will not affect a promise already made before God. Breaking that promise would STILL be a sin; it matters not whether others are still required to make it.

There is a difference between ordaining men who are married and allowing clergy to get married. The Orthodox churches and, in some situations, Catholics, allow the first. The second was not practiced before the Reformation.

P.S. We may well have another pope well before thirty years from now. Still, celibacy has been around nigh on 1,000 years. Don’t hold your breath waiting for it to go away.
Eddie:

The content of your posts are very good and on the mark. I’ll just add something to what you have said.

There are situations when something is a sing today and not tomorrow. These have to do with disciplines. For example, eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. It no longer is. Does that mean that the Church was wrong?

Absolutely not. It means that the Church has the authority to bind and unbind. Therefore, she has the power to govern. When she says something, she is to be obeyed. When one disobeys, one is in a state of sin, such as the case of meat on Fridays.

The same applies to law on celibacy. The current law for the Latin Rite is that you must be celibate if you are single at the time of ordiantion. That law can change. We have to obey the law that’s in effect at the time of the aciton. In this case, a man being ordained has to obey the law of celibacy, because it’s in effect today. Like you, I doubt it will change, because it has been around for 1,000 years. St. Pope Gregory VII made sure that it was locked into the Latin Rite.

It’s going to take another pope to change it. No individual priest can claim that he has the right to change it for himself. He is setting himself up outside of the rules. How does any Catholic set himself above the rules, unless you’re the person who makes the rules?

To the best of my knowledge, the only person who can make and abrogate rules is the Pope and those whom the Pope delegates to do so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Eddie:

The content of your posts are very good and on the mark. I’ll just add something to what you have said.

There are situations when something is a sing today and not tomorrow. These have to do with disciplines. For example, eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. It no longer is. Does that mean that the Church was wrong?

Absolutely not. It means that the Church has the authority to bind and unbind. Therefore, she has the power to govern. When she says something, she is to be obeyed. When one disobeys, one is in a state of sin, such as the case of meat on Fridays.

The same applies to law on celibacy. The current law for the Latin Rite is that you must be celibate if you are single at the time of ordiantion. That law can change. We have to obey the law that’s in effect at the time of the aciton. In this case, a man being ordained has to obey the law of celibacy, because it’s in effect today. Like you, I doubt it will change, because it has been around for 1,000 years. St. Pope Gregory VII made sure that it was locked into the Latin Rite.

It’s going to take another pope to change it. No individual priest can claim that he has the right to change it for himself. He is setting himself up outside of the rules. How does any Catholic set himself above the rules, unless you’re the person who makes the rules?

To the best of my knowledge, the only person who can make and abrogate rules is the Pope and those whom the Pope delegates to do so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
However, if Jesus chose a married man as Pope, and eleven of the twelve apostles were married, shouldn’t that carry some weight?
 
However, if Jesus chose a married man as Pope, and eleven of the twelve apostles were married, shouldn’t that carry some weight?
That’s what I was getting at. The Church has declared sinful, something that Jesus did. Jesus did not choose married men who were already priests. He chose men who were married.
 
That’s what I was getting at. The Church has declared sinful, something that Jesus did. Jesus did not choose married men who were already priests. He chose men who were married.
No it hasn’t. The Church has not declared it sinful for a married man to be ordained. There are specific situations where he can be (e.g. an Anglican priest converting, or any of the Eastern Catholic rites). What it has done is to require, absent those situations, that those entering the clergy, other than permanent deacons, promise celibacy. It is breaking that promise that is sinful; not being married.

The issue at the moment is not married men being ordained, but rather men who are ordained ( and having committed to celibacy) getting married, counter to obedience. They are not the same issue.

(If feeling several years on, that one can no longer keep the commitment he made before God and the Church, entitles him to unilaterally break that commitment, would that not also work in more mundane situations? What about a married man deciding after more than a decade that he just needs somebody new?)
 
No it hasn’t. The Church has not declared it sinful for a married man to be ordained. There are specific situations where he can be (e.g. an Anglican priest converting, or any of the Eastern Catholic rites). What it has done is to require, absent those situations, that those entering the clergy, other than permanent deacons, promise celibacy. It is breaking that promise that is sinful; not being married.

The issue at the moment is not married men being ordained, but rather men who are ordained ( and having committed to celibacy) getting married, counter to obedience. They are not the same issue.

(If feeling several years on, that one can no longer keep the commitment he made before God and the Church, entitles him to unilaterally break that commitment, would that not also work in more mundane situations? What about a married man deciding after more than a decade that he just needs somebody new?)
 
No it hasn’t. The Church has not declared it sinful for a married man to be ordained. There are specific situations where he can be (e.g. an Anglican priest converting, or any of the Eastern Catholic rites). What it has done is to require, absent those situations, that those entering the clergy, other than permanent deacons, promise celibacy. It is breaking that promise that is sinful; not being married.
So it’s OK for a priest to be married as long as he doesn’t do it under our roof. That makes no sense at all.
 
The issue at the moment is not married men being ordained, but rather men who are ordained ( and having committed to celibacy) getting married, counter to obedience. They are not the same issue.
If it’s OK to let married non-Catholic men become priests, why not let married Catholic men become priests?
 
If it’s OK to let married non-Catholic men become priests, why not let married Catholic men become priests?
They did once; meebe they will again. I’m not arguing one way or the other; this is not my problem. Notice the name on the posting is ‘GEddie’ and not ‘PopeB16’.

However, I imagine that as long as the masses are howling for such a change, the church would not consider making it. The church is not a weathervane for the opinions of secular culture; it is a guidepath for human beings who live within it.

Losing priests who decide they can’t be celibate is far less damaging than being seen to surrender to the “sexual revolution.”
 
If it’s OK to let married non-Catholic men become priests, why not let married Catholic men become priests?
Its my understanding that its not allowed because its *not *OK.

Its a matter of Roman Church discipline to prefer not to allow it.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Celibacy of the Clergy

One can get more good answers by going here:

ewtn.com/vexperts/search.asp

and entering the term “celibacy” and changing the year back a few.

The same question has been asked and answered in various ways.
 
Its my understanding that its not allowed because its *not *OK.

Its a matter of Roman Church discipline to prefer not to allow it.
Then why is it OK to accept married non-Catholic priests? When they become Catholic they can remain married.
 
Then why is it OK to accept married non-Catholic priests? When they become Catholic they can remain married.
I read a couple of the answers at the links I gave and Fr. Levis seemed to infer that some exceptions were made experimentally.

I know that Anglicans and Eastern Liturgy priests are permitted by their specific canonical disciplines to marry. If they wish to convert to Roman/Latin Catholicism they are not required to get divorced.

What that all entails for approval, I don’t exactly know.

About all else I know is that once a married priest has converted to Catholicism the married priests are not assigned to pastorate positions and or if they were to become widowed, to remarry after that. They must remain celibate in that circumstance.

I also have been told that Eastern priests must be married before becoming a priest. They cannot marry after ordination.

I have heard other theological as well as scriptural arguments for the discipline which seem logical. I do know however, that the Church maintains priestly celibacy as a matter ecclesial discipline and its not a matter of morality so the Church is free to change that discipline should it see fit.

I can’t see that happening though. Personally I appreciate the discipline for the service it provides the faithful.
 
Its my understanding that its not allowed because its *not *OK…
But it was OK for Jesus to choose a married man as the first Catholic Pope? And it was OK for Jesus to choose eleven married men as Apostles? Or was that a bad thing also?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top