holy orders and marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter lent
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lent

Guest
Question:

I don’t understand why it is impossible for a priest to marry after he is ordained.

I understand that priestly celibacy is a discipline that is undertaken at the time of ordination. I also understand that it is possible to ordain a married man (under special circumstances).

What is it about the mark of the priesthood on the soul of a man that renders it impossible for him to enter into the bonds of holy matrimony? The only way seems to be with a dispensation from his vows of celibacy- after having his faculties removed, and being forever reduced to the lay state. (The equivalent of an annulment?) Saying, in effect, that he should have never been ordained in the first place because of some “defect”.

Question 2:

Has there ever been a time in the church’s history that priests were allowed to marry after ordination?

I have been diligently searching for answers to these particular questions - Thank you for your responses.
 
St. Paul wrote that those who are called should remain as they are. The celibate to remain celibate and the married to remain married.
 
ByzCath said:
Just curious, can you state where St Paul says this?
Click to expand...
[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 7:20[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 7:24[/BIBLEDRB]

While he was talking about different things in those paragraphs, the part of the chapter before and after these passages were about marriage and celibacy.
 
lent said:
Question:

I don’t understand why it is impossible for a priest to marry after he is ordained.

I understand that priestly celibacy is a discipline that is undertaken at the time of ordination. I also understand that it is possible to ordain a married man (under special circumstances).

What is it about the mark of the priesthood on the soul of a man that renders it impossible for him to enter into the bonds of holy matrimony? The only way seems to be with a dispensation from his vows of celibacy- after having his faculties removed, and being forever reduced to the lay state. (The equivalent of an annulment?) Saying, in effect, that he should have never been ordained in the first place because of some “defect”.

Question 2:

Has there ever been a time in the church’s history that priests were allowed to marry after ordination?

I have been diligently searching for answers to these particular questions - Thank you for your responses.
Click to expand...
Actually, its not the mark of the priesthood that makes them incapable of entering marriage, it is also a discipline. For instance, if a married man with young children were to be ordained a deacon, and his wife passes away early, he might be able to receive permission to marry again.

Also, laicization is NOT the equivalent of an annulment. Once ordained, always ordained. A priest who is laicized may not perform functions as a priest, but he still has the ability to. He can hear a dying person’s confession if necessary. A laicization is not granted because of a “defect” as you are equating it to an annulment.
 
This is the tradition. No marriage after ordination.

It could be otherwise, like any disciplinary law. This also make it easy, so there is no problem with annulments or divorces. Every society has the right to set the rules

The dispensation from the clerical obligation is not similar to the annulment. This is simply the recognition of the fact that God is ready to forgive. The person who get the dispensation still has the permanent character of the priesthood, only except the extreme necessity, has no faculty to exercise the priestly functions. In a few cases the dispensation was reversed without reordination.
 
Other than the Biblical reasons, there are practical ones. Can you imagine a priest going through the process of dating? :eek: The church also says that permenant deacons cannot marry expect in very specific circumstances. So a deacon who’s wife dies cannot remarry. Or if a man becomes a deacon before being married, he cannot then later marry (although it is rare for an never married man to become a permenant deacon).

The Orthodox church, who do have married clergy, have the same rule. A man must be married before ordination or he cannot get married. And their bishops are only chosen from those priests who are not maried.

Many conservative protestant demonimations have the same rules (although unwritten). they prefer their pastors to be maried, but they frown on those men dating after “ordination”, so the effect is the same.
 
Mrs_Sally said:
Other than the Biblical reasons, there are practical ones. Can you imagine a priest going through the process of dating? :eek: The church also says that permenant deacons cannot marry expect in very specific circumstances. So a deacon who’s wife dies cannot remarry. Or if a man becomes a deacon before being married, he cannot then later marry (although it is rare for an never married man to become a permenant deacon).

The Orthodox church, who do have married clergy, have the same rule. A man must be married before ordination or he cannot get married. And their bishops are only chosen from those priests who are not maried.

Many conservative protestant demonimations have the same rules (although unwritten). they prefer their pastors to be maried, but they frown on those men dating after “ordination”, so the effect is the same.
Click to expand...
Only Deacons who have been married have the possibility of getting married again should the wife die and leave young children behind. But its a case-to-case basis that would need approval from the Holy See.

There is really no “permanent Diaconate”. The Roman Catholic Church tucked that term there to say that “okay we will ordain married men into the Diaconate only.” Just a way to reinforce the celibacy rule for priests. But even Permanent Deacons can still be ordained priests, either if they receive an indult (unlikely) or later in life if they become a widower).
 
ConstantineTG said:
Only Deacons who have been married have the possibility of getting married again should the wife die and leave young children behind. But its a case-to-case basis that would need approval from the Holy See.

There is really no “permanent Diaconate”. The Roman Catholic Church tucked that term there to say that “okay we will ordain married men into the Diaconate only.” Just a way to reinforce the celibacy rule for priests. But even Permanent Deacons can still be ordained priests, either if they receive an indult (unlikely) or later in life if they become a widower).
Click to expand...
Actually there is not such thing as “transitional” or “permanent” diaconate in the Church, there is just the diaconate.

There is a very rich tradition of deacons in the Church, it has always been in the Eastern Churches. The practice of doing away with deacons and just having a “transitional” diaconate is something that was only done within the Latin Church.

The idea that one in Holy Orders may not marry is far more than just a discipline within the Church. It is theological and dogmatic, it is a fact of Holy Orders. The practice of allowing a deacon with young children to remarry has only been done in a very few cases and I believe it is done in the spirit of Economia, a practice that is more common in the Orthodox Churches.
 
So, in essence, even marriage after ordination is a discipline, not a sacramental impossibility.

thank you for your replies 🙂
 
lent said:
So, in essence, even marriage after ordination is a discipline, not a sacramental impossibility.

thank you for your replies 🙂
Click to expand...
This is wrong.

A man in Holy Orders who attempts to contract a marriage does so invalidly. That is any marriage will be invalid and there for not a sacrament.
 
ByzCath said:
This is wrong.

A man in Holy Orders who attempts to contract a marriage does so invalidly. That is any marriage will be invalid and there for not a sacrament.
Click to expand...
This is wrong. Read the whole thread. There is an occasional possibility a deacon may be ordained, his wife passes away while they still have young children, and he may get permission to marry again.

It is most certainly a discipline as it is theologically possible.
 
agapewolf said:
This is wrong. Read the whole thread. There is an occasional possibility a deacon may be ordained, his wife passes away while they still have young children, and he may get permission to marry again.

It is most certainly a discipline as it is theologically possible.
Click to expand...
Please read my earlier post, it is post #9 in this thread.

I understand your and others opinions on this, I just disagree with you.

Canon Law states that those in Holy Orders who attempt to contract a marriage do so invalidly.
Can. 1087 Those who are in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage.
If it was only a discipline then it would only be illicitly.
 
ByzCath said:
Please read my earlier post, it is post #9 in this thread.

I understand your and others opinions on this, I just disagree with you.

Canon Law states that those in Holy Orders who attempt to contract a marriage do so invalidly.
Can. 1087 Those who are in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage.
If it was only a discipline then it would only be illicitly.
Click to expand...
I read it, and the canon law does not prove theology. It proves discipline. Canon laws are changed and given dispensations and exceptions. Canon law is a matter of discipline.

And there are deacons that have remarried, and they are in catholic church.

And you used the word “dogmatic” , I am assuming in reference to dogma, wrong.
 
ByzCath said:
The idea that one in Holy Orders may not marry is far more than just a discipline within the Church. It is theological and dogmatic, it is a fact of Holy Orders.
Click to expand...
If it were dogmatic, I don’t think it could be dispensed, could it? I don’t know about deacons marrying again, but I have heard of priests being laicized and then being allowed to marry. Since laicization does not remove the priestly character, only the faculties, a marriage should not be possible for him, if the rule were dogmatic.

I understand that canon law says his attempted marriage is invalid, but in a similar way, a Catholic who marries outside of the Church is not free to marry in the Church until he/she obtains a decree from the tribunal, even though we all know the marriage outside the Church was invalid.

The connection between these two cases is that The Church has the authority to make rules on sacramental validity which strictly speaking do not have a theological basis.
 
Spirithound said:
If it were dogmatic, I don’t think it could be dispensed, could it? I don’t know about deacons marrying again, but I have heard of priests being laicized and then being allowed to marry. Since laicization does not remove the priestly character, only the faculties, a marriage should not be possible for him, if the rule were dogmatic.

I understand that canon law says his attempted marriage is invalid, but in a similar way, a Catholic who marries outside of the Church is not free to marry in the Church until he/she obtains a decree from the tribunal, even though we all know the marriage outside the Church was invalid.

The connection between these two cases is that The Church has the authority to make rules on sacramental validity which strictly speaking do not have a theological basis.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard this from a canon lawyer: One of the more “cruel” punishments for a priest is to be laitized, forbidden to appear as a priest and all that, but not dispensed from his promise of celibacy.

I think it’s more correct to say that the promise of celibacy is an impediment to marriage (just as still being in a valid marriage would be). Another example is trying to marry your cousin, but that can also be dispensed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top