married clergy

[Cody]

I was reading a document on Anglican clergy members who converted to Catholicism, when I happend to read this statement: “For doctrinal reasons the Church does not, in any circumstances, allow the ordination of married men as Bishops.” I always understood that celibant clergy was a disciplanary issue, and that includes bishops, not a doctrinal issue. I am wondering if I am reading something wrong here, or if whoever wrote this piece from the Vatican website made a mistake.

Here is the primary source: press.catholica.va/news_services/bulletin/news/26720.php?index=26720&lang=en

 

[runningdude]

I don’t believe it is doctrinal that it is physically/spiritually impossible for a married man to be ordained to bishop, or in reverse, a laiticized bishop from being married.

The doctrinal “reasons” concern the doctrine that bishop represents the fullness of the Christian priesthood, and the doctrine that Christ lived his live fully consecrated to God. As the highest of high priests, He forsook marriage and gave his life, quite literally, to God the Father. Combined, these two doctrines suggest that it would be highly confusing to the faithful for the a man representing the fullness of the priesthood to be married.

Its an important discipline, comparable to the perpetual vow of celibacy made by religious brothers or sisters (monks or nuns), that the Catholic Church is not willing to compromise.

 

[wjp984]

In theory, the Pope could be married. Peter, the first Pope, was married after all.

I alos think that the Pope could marry if he wants to because he has the power to change the disciplines of the church. No pope would ever do this but nonetheless, I think in theory, he could.

 

[pablope]

I was reading a document on Anglican clergy members who converted to Catholicism, when I happend to read this statement: “For doctrinal reasons the Church does not, in any circumstances, allow the ordination of married men as Bishops.” I always understood that celibant clergy was a disciplanary issue, and that includes bishops, not a doctrinal issue. I am wondering if I am reading something wrong here, or if whoever wrote this piece from the Vatican website made a mistake.

Here is the primary source: press.catholica.va/news_services/bulletin/news/26720.php?index=26720&lang=en

I have read before, that it is Tradition that bishops be celibate. I do not know how early though. Also, read 1Cor 7, St. Paul’s verses on celibacy.

In the Eastern rites, only the celibate clergy can become bishops. So they follow the Latin tradition too.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Cody,

I do believe that the Vatican PR people “miswrote”.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church l read this :

1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities.73 Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.

This is called a discipline. It is not doctrine. In Timothy 1, S. Paul says that the bishop must be married only once.

We should also remember this : while the Church has allowed married men to become priests (and perhaps bishops as some time), it never allowed priests (or bishops) to marry. In the Eastern Church, a seminarian who intends to marry, must go out, find a bride and marry before being ordained.

Verbum