Improper homily on Priesthood

[paulkrause]

Our Priest used this last Sunday’s homily to talk about the Priesthood. Unfortunately, he described what I think he would like to happen, not what the church teaches and why. I have tremendous respect for priests and the priesthood, what should I do? Write a letter to our Bishop? And as a result of this (and other things that seem to be a bit out-of-bounds) we are considering finding another parish. Is that an appropriate step to take?

**Here is a very brief summary of what he said during his homily: **When he was in seminary (apprx 25 yrs ago) there was discussion about the celibate priesthood and how it could change, but now “the hierarchy has squelched all discussion” on the matter. He gave a bleak outlook on the priesthood - at least for our diocese - (number of priests who will leave, the number who struggle with alcohol and depression, etc. and how few are entering seminaries). Then he proceeded to give what he thought should happen or ideas to solve this problem, things that he would like to see discussed again; the possibility of married men becoming priests, women becoming priests, merging local parishes and having a super or mega church instead, having priests travel around on a circuit and move the mass from Sunday to Wednesday or whatever day would work.

(and the week before, he delivered his homily from the back of church - why? I’m not sure.)

Needless to say it was very upsetting, my family and I nearly walked out. So many Catholics do not understand the church’s teaching on why Priests must be celibate and the priesthood in general. I feel the Church’s teaching should be taught and explained for fellow parishioners (myself included). As I asked in the beginning of this letter, what can or should we do?

Thank you
Paul

 

[Brendan]

He is correct on one point. Married men CAN be ordained to the priesthood.

The Eastern Catholics regularly do so. The requirement for celibacy IS something that is pastoral, not theological. Celibacy in clergy is a superior state, but not a required one.

His is certainly incorrect on the ability of women to be ordained. They cannot.

As far as merging churches into larger parishes, that is something than can also be done.

 

[Dauphin]

This man went to seminary in a notoriously modernist time. Don’t let it worry you; his kind is quickly dying out.

That being said, you should write to the bishop about his activities and inform the priest you’re doing so. His only real heresy is the absurd contention that women can be ordained to the priesthood. This should be corrected immediately.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Priests were allowed to marry until 1100 or so. It was medevial property rights (church property) that forced a change in policy during the Middle Ages.

So it is not going against tradition to bring back married priests (e.g. make celibacy optional). It would increase the numbers of priests in seminaries. A few bishops have talked about it in pastoral letters with valid reasons to do so.

Here are a couple good examples on why it should be done.

dnu.org/news/lucker/oct98.html

dnu.org/news/lucker/nov98.html

It is easy in the US to protect Church property, just have pre-nuptial agreements that simply state all Church property is off-limits in case of a divorce and problem solved.

 

[PapaSquash]

New Ulm, My understanding was that married men could be ordained but that ordained men were not allowed to marry. Or is that just the modern way of things in the Eastern rites?

That would take the pre-nup option off the table wouldn’t it?

 

[Brendan]

New Ulm, My understanding was that married men could be ordained but that ordained men were not allowed to marry. Or is that just the modern way of things in the Eastern rites?

That would take the pre-nup option off the table wouldn’t it?

Your understanding is correct. A Married man can be ordained, but once Ordained, a man cannot marry.

 

[Brendan]

Priests were allowed to marry until 1100 or so. It was medevial property rights (church property) that forced a change in policy during the Middle Ages…

Where did you pick up that old wives tale?

The Western Church made clerical cleibacy it’s standard in the Council of Evira ( 295) in Spain, France with the Council of Ancyra in 314 and Italy (including Rome itself) with the Council of Trullo, in 692.

Married priest were sometimes allowed, but it was never a common practice in the Latin Church since the 7th Century.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Priests were allowed to marry until 1100 or so. It was medevial property rights (church property) that forced a change in policy during the Middle Ages.

So it is not going against tradition to bring back married priests (e.g. make celibacy optional). It would increase the numbers of priests in seminaries. A few bishops have talked about it in pastoral letters with valid reasons to do so.

Here are a couple good examples on why it should be done.

dnu.org/news/lucker/oct98.html

dnu.org/news/lucker/nov98.html

It is easy in the US to protect Church property, just have pre-nuptial agreements that simply state all Church property is off-limits in case of a divorce and problem solved.

You OBVIOUSLY have never been near a divorce court or a divorce lawyer.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Where did you pick up that old wives tale?

The Western Church made clerical cleibacy it’s standard in the Council of Evira ( 295) in Spain, France with the Council of Ancyra in 314 and Italy (including Rome itself) with the Council of Trullo, in 692.

Married priest were sometimes allowed, but it was never a common practice in the Latin Church since the 7th Century.

Interesting you cite Trullo:

It was attended by 215 bishops, all Orientals. Basil of Gortyna in Illyria, however, belonged to the Roman patriarchate and called himself papal legate, though no evidence is extant of his right to use a title that in the East served to clothe the decrees with Roman authority. In fact, the West never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council, in large measure reaffirmations of earlier canons. Most of the new canons exhibit an inimical attitude towards Churches not in disciplinary accord with Constantinople, especially the Western Churches. Their customs are anathematized and “every little detail of difference is remembered to be condemned” (Fortescue). Canon iii of Constantinople (381) and canon xxviii of Chalcedon (451) [which state the Pope of Rome owes his position to the position of Rome as capital, and made Constantinople, New Rome, therefore 2nd] are renewed, the heresy of Honorius [this Pope of Rome anathematized as a heretic at the Sixth Council) is again condemned (can. i), and marriage with a heretic is invalid because Rome says it is merely unlawful; Rome had recognized fifty of the Apostolic Canons, therefore the other thirty-five obtain recognition from this council, and as inspired teaching.

In the matter of celibacy the Greek prelates are not content to let the Roman Church follow its own discipline, but insist on making a rule (for the whole Church) that all clerics except bishops may continue in wedlock, while they excommunicate anyone who tries to separate a priest or deacon from his wife, and any cleric who leaves his wife because he is ordained (can. iii, vi, xii, xiii, xlviii).

The Eastern Orthodox churches holds this council an ecumenical one, and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils. in the West St. Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a “reprobate” synod, and Paul the Deacon (Hist. Lang., VI, p. 11) an “erratic” one. Dr. Fortescue rightly says (op. cit. below, p. 96) that intolerance of all other customs with the wish to make the whole Christian world conform to its own local practices has always been and still is a characteristic note of the Byzantine Church. [and the Latins?] For the attitude of the popes, substantially identical, in face of the various attempts to obtain their approval of these canons, see Hefele, “Conciliengesch.” (III, 345-48).

newadvent.org/cathen/04311b.htm

Pope Sergius I protested the council, and refused to sign the canons. At Sergius’s refusal, Justinian dispatched a military delegation to Rome lead by Zacharias to induce Sergius to sign. However, the imperial army at Ravenna, composed mainly of native Italians rallied to support the Roman Pontiff, marching on Rome to eject Zacharias. In Visigothic Spain [the same people we have to thank for the filioque, and their predecessors for mandated clerical celebacy], however, the council was ratified by the Eighteenth Council of Toledo at the urging of the king, Wittiza, who was villified by later chroniclers for his decision. Fruela I of Asturias reversed the decision of Toledo sometime during his reign (757–768).

 

[VociMike]

Priests were allowed to marry until 1100 or so. It was medevial property rights (church property) that forced a change in policy during the Middle Ages.

I’m amazed anybody can still repeat this tale. If property rights were really the issue, then preventing marriages wouldn’t have helped at all. The priests still could have left the property to their brothers, fathers, nephews, etc, etc.

Assuming, that is, that the property was theirs to leave at all, which of course it wasn’t.

 

[1ke]

Paul,

First take your concerns to your priest-- with some solid church teaching. If he refuses to correct his erroneous sermon publicly, then I think you should take it to the next level because saying things like that at Mass can lead many astray.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I’m amazed anybody can still repeat this tale. If property rights were really the issue, then preventing marriages wouldn’t have helped at all. The priests still could have left the property to their brothers, fathers, nephews, etc, etc.

Assuming, that is, that the property was theirs to leave at all, which of course it wasn’t.

This isn’t a tale but historical fact.

Heck, consider if we had married priest here in the USA. Do you think that the wife’s lawyer, would not go after Church property and money, as the result of a divorce?

I think its one of the main reasons we will not see mandated celibacy lifted, in the Latin rite.

Jim

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

This isn’t a tale but historical fact.

Heck, consider if we had married priest here in the USA. Do you think that the wife’s lawyer, would not go after Church property and money, as the result of a divorce?

I think its one of the main reasons we will not see mandated celibacy lifted, in the Latin rite.

Jim

No, I don’t think the wife’s lawyer would go after Church property unless he were a total idiot - the priest doesn’t own any of it!!! That’s an entirely absurd imaginary problem. That’s like an engineer’s wife divorcing him and trying to get the factory he works at.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No, I don’t think the wife’s lawyer would go after Church property unless he were a total idiot - the priest doesn’t own any of it!!! That’s an entirely absurd imaginary problem. That’s like an engineer’s wife divorcing him and trying to get the factory he works at.

doesn’t matter. Being the wife was use to a certain living standard, i.e. living in a rectory with nice furniture etc, you can bet lawyers would make the attempt to go after it.

Heck, the Bishops don’t own Church property or funds, yet the lawyers went after it when they sued over the sex abuse scandal.

Lawyers go after the deep pockets.

Jim

 

[1ke]

This isn’t a tale but historical fact.

Then you should be able to provide us with some proof. Wikipedia, blogs, and You Tube are not proof.

Heck, consider if we had married priest here in the USA. Do you think that the wife’s lawyer, would not go after Church property and money, as the result of a divorce?

Since the Church property and money do not belong to the priest, no.

I think its one of the main reasons we will not see mandated celibacy lifted, in the Latin rite.

I do not believe celibacy will be changed either, but not for any reason you have cited here.

 

[1ke]

doesn’t matter. Being the wife was use to a certain living standard, i.e. living in a rectory with nice furniture etc, you can bet lawyers would make the attempt to go after it.

Anything purchased by the priest or wife would certainly be an asset over which they could wrangle. Property not owned by either of them would not.

Heck, the Bishops don’t own Church property or funds, yet the lawyers went after it when they sued over the sex abuse scandal.

Yes, they sued the diocese, a legal entity, of which the Bishop was the sole shareholder. Entirely different from the parishes, and diocese have since restructured their legal entities to avoid this issue in the future

Lawyers go after the deep pockets.

Yes, but they can only go after pants belonging to the priest.

 

[mgrfin]

Our Priest used this last Sunday’s homily to talk about the Priesthood. Unfortunately, he described what I think he would like to happen, not what the church teaches and why. I have tremendous respect for priests and the priesthood, what should I do? Write a letter to our Bishop? And as a result of this (and other things that seem to be a bit out-of-bounds) we are considering finding another parish. Is that an appropriate step to take?

**Here is a very brief summary of what he said during his homily: **When he was in seminary (apprx 25 yrs ago) there was discussion about the celibate priesthood and how it could change, but now “the hierarchy has squelched all discussion” on the matter. He gave a bleak outlook on the priesthood - at least for our diocese - (number of priests who will leave, the number who struggle with alcohol and depression, etc. and how few are entering seminaries). Then he proceeded to give what he thought should happen or ideas to solve this problem, things that he would like to see discussed again; the possibility of married men becoming priests, women becoming priests, merging local parishes and having a super or mega church instead, having priests travel around on a circuit and move the mass from Sunday to Wednesday or whatever day would work.

(and the week before, he delivered his homily from the back of church - why? I’m not sure.)

Needless to say it was very upsetting, my family and I nearly walked out. So many Catholics do not understand the church’s teaching on why Priests must be celibate and the priesthood in general. I feel the Church’s teaching should be taught and explained for fellow parishioners (myself included). As I asked in the beginning of this letter, what can or should we do?

Thank you
Paul

Well, that what was happening 35 years ago. However, anticipated changes did not occur, and there were a lot of priests who left, some with permission, some without.

It is way past those times, and the priest should update to reality.
The priesthood, especially celibacy requires great sacrifice, but so does anything really worthwhile. He should have outlined the Church’s need for priests, who are willing to dedicate their lives to the Church, and lead prayers for vocations.

He seems quite bitter, and that is no way to deliver a sermon.

peace

 

[drafdog]

The priest in question is fully within his rights to suggest that discussion of the need to continue the discipline of celebacy be resumed. As it is not a necessary element of the priestly function, it is up for debate. As for the idea that women cannot be ordained, it is contrary to the scripture that says that we are no longer to make distinctions between slave and free, Jew or Greek, male or female (Rabbi Paul to the Church at Galatia). All of the hierarchy’s arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, the Church cannot go against scripture.

Matthew

 

[JimR-OCDS]

1ke;

Then you should be able to provide us with some proof. Wikipedia, blogs, and You Tube are not proof.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia;

The episcopal sees, as we learn from such an authority as Bishop Egbert of Trier, were given as fiefs to rude soldiers, and were treated as property which descended by hereditary right from father to son.

Don’t forget, the Church wasn’t living under democratic governments, but often tyrannical monarchies. Laws of inheritance changed according to the whim of kings and queens.

Since the Church property and money do not belong to the priest, no.

Then how it is, that the Bishops are forced to use Church funds and sell Church property to settle law suits in the sex abuse scandal, when the Bishops and priest who committed the crimes, don’t own Church property?

Jim

 

[PapaSquash]

Then how it is, that the Bishops are forced to use Church funds and sell Church property to settle law suits in the sex abuse scandal, when the Bishops and priest who committed the crimes, don’t own Church property?
Jim

The suits were against the Diocese, which does own the property. If I sue McDonalds because an undercooked burger gives me e-coli, I don’t sue the grill cook.

And if I win more than they are insured for, the management of McDonalds, who may own no stock in the company, will be forced to liquidate corporate assets to pay me off.

( McDonalds is just an example, no burgers were consumed in the formatting of this post.)