Married/Female priests?

[hthrlu]

Maybe I didn’t make myself very clear. I don’t really want it to change. I have been working very hard at making my peace with this issue. I am praying and asking God for the direction I need to help me here.

But…

I think that everyone who says “it’s impossible” is discounting any power God has in this situation. If God wants women ordained, is it still impossible? No. If God wants women ordained, he will guide the church to that conclusion, and then the church will ordain women.

Imagine for a moment:

Ever since Adam and Eve sinned, there has been power inequity between men and women. Women have been property, with no rights of their own. In recent centuries, women were 2nd class citizens. In the last 40 years, women have been making breakthrough after breakthrough, advancing their equality. (In Pope John Paul II’s Dignity writing, he said that it was all mankind’s and every generation’s responsibility to undo the inequity that was the result of sin). What if, just imagine, what if God is behind the women’s movement in America, and it’s because he’s guiding us towards equality?

Just a thought.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

John Higgins:

Byz,

We’ve had this discussion before. The fact that we and very many theologians are still discussing this clearly answers this section of Canon Law which says:
CCL:

Can 749 §3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.

All this proves is that these “theologians” think themselves exempt from Church Teaching, again…
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

A “theologian” is nothing more than a member of the laity. It is up to the Church, that is the Holy Father and the Magistirum, to determine dogma and what is infallible. If you listen to these “theologians” then the issue of abortion and contraception are still open too.

 

[John_Colean]

I believe married priest would have an understanding of the pressures that many of us endure that an unmarried priest would not have. Lets face it, priest cannot really understand the pressures of raising a family on a single income, paying on a 30-year mortgage, keeping the house and car(s) in repair, dealing with several children, each with their own set of problems, and of course relating to and maintaining a conjugal relationship with a spouse. He may know the “book” response to these issues, but unless you have actually been there and done that, you really don’t get the tee-shirt.

I know our priest are really stretched thin; however, I have no doubt that the priesthood ranks would swell considerably if married men were allowed, thereby reducing the workload on current priest. However, this brings me to my next point and the point that I believe is the most salient and that is, who is going to pay for married priests. A married man with a family deserves and requires a decent wage, which is a financial requirement that the Church does not currently have. This means that each of us will have to dig a little deeper when the Sunday morning plate is passed. However, I believe the cost is definitely worth it.

Regarding the other issue of female priests, I don’t believe it will happen in our life time, but I believe it will eventually occur. Christ held women in very high regard and I do not believe He would have an objection to them participating in the rite of Holy Orders. But lets face it, do we believe that a group of old bachelors who belong to an exclusively male dominated society would ever allow women into their ranks??

Blessings to all,

John

 

[Donna_P]

ByzCath:

Donna,
While this might be true for some Roman Catholic Dioceses, I am not sure if it is that way with all of them.

Also, in the Byzantine Catholic Churches, our married priests are pastors and run parishes.

The pastor of Saint Josaphat in Rochester, NY, Fr Kiril, is married and runs the parish.

I also believe that at least one of the Anglican Use Parishes is run by a married convert who was ordained to the priesthood.

I was speaking about Roman Catholic churches. But now I find that there are some parishes where the priest who is in charge is married. I hadn’t known that.

This does not change the fact that there will be no women priests.

God Bless,
Donna

 

[John_Henry]

John Higgins:

It simply hasn’t been manifestly demonstrated.

Not by the CDF?

CONCERNING THE TEACHING CONTAINED IN ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS RESPONSUM AD DUBIUM
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

October 28, 1995

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: In the affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

 

[Steve_M]

gelsbern:

the celebacy was… put in place because one of the Popes was a Benedictine and Benedictines are required to take a vow of Celibacy and that Pope thought it would be good for the entire Church.

Just a correction, if you read the canons from the Council of Nicaea, you’ll see that the third Canon forbids clergy from living with any women except mothers, sisters, and aunts. That was in the year 325. If you read some more about the council, you’ll see that this topic was included, because it was already practiced. The question was should they change it. The answer was no.

 

[mtr01]

Married priests in the Western Church would not be impossible, although it is extremely unlikely (I doub’t if it’ll ever happen, let alone in our lifetime).

Female Priests (Priestesses) are impossible. The Church has infallibly declared that is has no authority to ordain women, as discussed in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Steve M:

Just a correction, if you read the canons from the Council of Nicaea, you’ll see that the third Canon forbids clergy from living with any women except mothers, sisters, and aunts. That was in the year 325. If you read some more about the council, you’ll see that this topic was included, because it was already practiced. The question was should they change it. The answer was no.

Actually the third canon says…

3. This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.

So, really, it does not say what you say it says. You say it forbids clergy from living with any women except mothers, sisters, and aunts.

But what it really says is that it forbids clergy from to keep any woman brought in to live with him except his mother or sister or aunt or of any person who is above suspicion. A priest or deacon’s wife would be above suspicion.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Steve M:

Just a correction, if you read the canons from the Council of Nicaea, you’ll see that the third Canon forbids clergy from living with any women except mothers, sisters, and aunts. That was in the year 325. If you read some more about the council, you’ll see that this topic was included, because it was already practiced. The question was should they change it. The answer was no.

Steve,

If you do not buy my reasoning in my reply in post #67 then how can you explain the way you understand Canon 3 of the Council of Nicaea with Canon 66 of the same Council. (bold emphasis added)

Canon 66

---

Of taking a second wife, after the former one has been disowned for any cause, or even not put away, and of him who falsely accuses his wife of adultery.

If any priest or deacon shall put away his wife on account of her fornication, or for other cause, as aforesaid, or cast her out of doors for external good, or that he may change her for another more beautiful, or better, or richer, or does so out of his lust which is displeasing to God; and after she has been put away for any of these causes he shall contract matrimony with another, or without having put her away shall take another, whether free or bond; and shall have both equally, they living separately and he sleeping every night with one or other of them, or else keeping both in the same house and bed, let him be deposed. If he were a layman let him be deprived of communion. But if anyone falsely defames his wife charging her with adultery, so that he turns her out of doors, the matter must be diligently examined; and if the accusation was false, he shall be deposed if a cleric, but if a layman shall be prohibited from entering the church and from the communion of the faithful; and shall be compelled to live with her whom he has defamed, even though she be deformed, and poor, and insane; and whoever shall not obey is excommunicated by the Synod.

How can he, a priest or deacon, have a wife if Canon 3 forbids it?

 

[justme]

At current count there are 38 people here who do not understand the difference between discipline and dogma.

They also do not understand that the Church already has married priests. Well I guess Angainor falls into that group also as he is not aware of that either.

 

[Steve_M]

ByzCath:

Steve,

If you do not buy my reasoning in my reply in post #67 then how can you explain the way you understand Canon 3 of the Council of Nicaea with Canon 66 of the same Council. (bold emphasis added)

I don’t have all of the research with me at my desk. When I writing a paper about Arinaism last semester I came across that issue. For a quick reference today as to whether it was the council of Nicaea or Constantinople, I looked at Newadvent.com. This is a direct quote from their page.

Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.

I also don’t remember there being 60+ canons. On a side note, I did my original research using Mrg. Philip Hughes book, The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325 - 1870
For anyone interested in the history of the councils, this is a very good source.

 

[Phat]

I think the state of disciplinary right now in the church towards this issues is great. I don’t see anything wrong with it, but I do see the point that is being made by advocates of people who thinks it’s great for the church to get away with the celibacy of priest. It would increase the ordination of men who have a desire for both vocations( marry life and priest life). But I still have to stick with the discplinary code this is enforce right by the church. Why? Even though this is a turn-off for many men, it will enrich one’s life to Christ only. And to be a holy priest, one needs to grasp the spiritual side affectionately rather than the secularistic side of the world. It’s also hard to handle two vocations at once. What if your son have a baseball game , but you need to go to the hospital to do the rite of Annoiting the Sick for a dying person? Would the priest’s son be mad at his dad for ditching his last baseball game (or hardly ever had time to see him play) for some dying stranger? All in all, a man needs to decide which path he’s going to take in life just like flipping a quarter to see if it’s tail or head. And it always land on one side, not both.

 

[Phat]

about female priests?

If I see pigs flying, people walking through walls, and a natural born and raised southern in his entire life that talks Minnasotian, then maybe I will think about it. other than that, NO!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Steve M:

I don’t have all of the research with me at my desk. When I writing a paper about Arinaism last semester I came across that issue. For a quick reference today as to whether it was the council of Nicaea or Constantinople, I looked at Newadvent.com. This is a direct quote from their page.

Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.

I also don’t remember there being 60+ canons. On a side note, I did my original research using Mrg. Philip Hughes book, The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325 - 1870
For anyone interested in the history of the councils, this is a very good source.

Here is the link I found my information at.

Council of Nicaea, Nicea (325)

Yes it appears that this site contains more than just the Canons of the Council of Nicaea, Canon 66 is from The Captions of the Arabic Canons Attributed to the Council of Nice.

Again, Canon 3 says “This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.”

You seem to conveniently end the Canon at “aunt” leaving out “or of any person who is above suspicion”.

And anyways, as the Orthodox and the Byzantine Churches continue to have a married priesthoood it is obviously not a matter of dogma but one of discipline which the Holy Father acknowledged it as when he said that it would not change in the Latin Church. After all, the Holy Father promulgated the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches which says we may ordain married men.

 

[cazayoux]

hthrlu:

Imagine for a moment:

Ever since Adam and Eve sinned, there has been power inequity between men and women. Women have been property, with no rights of their own. In recent centuries, women were 2nd class citizens. In the last 40 years, women have been making breakthrough after breakthrough, advancing their equality. (In Pope John Paul II’s Dignity writing, he said that it was all mankind’s and every generation’s responsibility to undo the inequity that was the result of sin). What if, just imagine, what if God is behind the women’s movement in America, and it’s because he’s guiding us towards equality?

Just a thought.

It seems a bit “woe is me” to consider women as SO inferior in the Catholic faith. It just isn’t so. You don’t have to be a man to follow Christ - there are quite a few ways to serve. I would think a woman would rather be a saint than a priest, anyway. (not to exclude the opportunities of priests to become saints ).

The Catholic faith is VERY VERY favorable toward women. Mary, Elizabeth, Mary of Magdala, the OT books of Esther, Judith, … X,000 female saints, …

Please, everyone, feel free to show other area of our faith that is positive toward women.

michel

 

[StPeterRules]

*What if, just imagine, what if God is behind the women’s movement in America, and it’s because he’s guiding us towards equality?

*I doubt any just God would choose Gloria Steinem and Hillary Clinton to be its flag bearers…

The thing is, the Church just doesn’t change tradition for no reason. It must be based in fact and logic, or divined.

What fact-based, statistic-supported, need-based reasons are there for allowing Priests to be married? I have never seen conclusive evidence to that end.

DO NOT answer “the Eastern Churches do it”. SO WHAT?

My neighbor has three dogs, but until I see a good reason to go get three dogs myself, I am not going to do so and change my lifestyle just because. I am confident though that should a good reason occur (or the angel Gabriel visits me), I’ll head right to the pound. Until then, no.

Every single Priest I have spoken to, save one, has said there is no major desire among the Priesthood to be married. Do they speak for every Priest, of course not, but they are a large representative sample from all over the US in dioceses I have lived.

There is no evidence to show that anything would change if Priests were suddenyl allowed to marry. Pointing to an increase in vocations is anecdotal at best, misleading at worst, since there is no empirical proof this would do anything. Science would use a test case to show the effects of said change; the Church however cannot. As someone mentioned, I don’t see the Deaconate bursting at it’s sides…

Until the Roman Catholic Church either has real reason to do so other than “well, uh, they do it!!”, or it is divined by God (in which case we might as well all get on board and end the discussion), this discussion is pointless. Could it happen, possibly. Will it unless there is a real need? No. That has neevr been how the Church has operated.

I get the feeling that most people who support these sort of changes do so because it’s what “they would like to see happen”, which is hardly reason enough for a Hierarchy-based, non-democratic Church like ours to change for.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

John Higgins:

Well, it’s certainly valid teaching, but it’s not infallible.

John,

I thank you for your opinion on the matter, but I disagree. The Church asserts otherwise.

“*This teaching [that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis] requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.” [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, *Respondum ad dubium, approved by John Paul II, October 28, 1995, ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrespo.htm ]

 

[BayCityRickL]

We haven’t seen a new pope in some years, but I’m sure every new pope is seen as a hope for change in some matter or other.

On the other hand, I think the cardinals confer among themselves and settle their votes when they are assured that the cardinal they vote for will maintain everything right where it is.

A sudden decision to allow female priests would rock and shock the Church and would probably cause a lot of damage. Have the synagogues and denominations that allow female rabbis and pastors prospered for that reason alone? No one seems to cite any testimony from those congregations that they have been blessed for making those moves.

If I were elected Pope, I would spend months conferring with the cardinals (whose job it is to advise the Pope) and take a couple months vacation (by the way) to get rested up for a big job.

I think re-unification with the Orthodox churches is far greater in importance than discussing the popular question of ordaining women to the priesthood. Re-evangelization of the Church all over the world is a far greater challenge.

Straightening out the U.S. Bishops who haven’t really accepted blame for the sexual abuse scandals that they deserve is another big subject.

And, BTW, why not appoint a Primate of the U.S.? – a head cardinal to watch over the whole Church in this area? We obviously need a big brother.

 

[John_Higgins]

John Henry and itsjustdave1988,

If it HAD been manifestly demonstrated, would the RESPONSUM AD DUBIUM have been necessary? No.

Why should I believe a fallible head of a fallible dicastery saying something is infallible?

John

BTW,

From JimmyAkin.org :

Here is Vatican II’s discussion of the conditions under which the ordinary Magisterium teaches infallibly:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held [Lumen Gentium 25].

This sets forth a number of conditions required for the exercise of infallibility when the bishops are not gathered in an ecumenical council: (1) the bishops are teaching while “maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter”, (2) they are “authentically teaching matters of faith and morals”, and (3) “they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.”

Do the bishops agree on this? That’s the condition. A real question would be why didn’t the Holy Father take pains to make this an ex cathedra proclamation?

jh

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

John Higgins:

Do the bishops agree on this? That’s the condition. A real question would be why didn’t the Holy Father take pains to make this an ex cathedra proclamation?

So if the bishops decide tomorrow that abortion is ok then what?

As Ordinatio Sacerdotalis says in paragraph 4, “the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium”. That is what lets us know it is infallible, that it has been a teaching upheld since the beginning of the Church, just as the teachings against abortion and contraception.