Married Priest???

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Category #1 “Because the Church says so…”

Why do you find it so difficult to accept that the Church does not conform to the world, she does not have to answer to you or me. She answers only to Christ, who gave hwe the ability to bind and loose as she sees fit.

 

[Brother_John]

Why do you find it so difficult to accept that the Church does not conform to the world, she does not have to answer to you or me. She answers only to Christ, who gave hwe the ability to bind and loose as she sees fit.

It’s not a matter of conforming to the world at all…it’s a matter of conforming to itself.

I have no problem with the Church requiring celibacy for it’s priests. It’s when they make an exception like that, that rocks my world.

Of all the things “Catholic” I learned growing up, it’s that priests and nuns were celibate…period…no ifs, ands, or buts.

I can’t tell my kids to be faithful to their spouses, if I have a gal on the side, no? Doesn’t mean that they WON’T be faithful to their spouses, but it sets a conflicting example.

 

[1ke]

It’s not a matter of conforming to the world at all…it’s a matter of conforming to itself.

It’s not a matter of “conforming” to anything at all. The Church makes laws, the church gives dispensations from those laws.

I have no problem with the Church requiring celibacy for it’s priests. It’s when they make an exception like that, that rocks my world.

And, I think others are with me on this when I state that I don’t understand WHY this would rock your world.

Of all the things “Catholic” I learned growing up, it’s that priests and nuns were celibate…period…no ifs, ands, or buts.

Well, now you know that those who taught you taught you incorrectly.

I can’t tell my kids to be faithful to their spouses, if I have a gal on the side, no? Doesn’t mean that they WON’T be faithful to their spouses, but it sets a conflicting example.

Priests are not married to the Church.

 

[rpp]

It’s not a matter of conforming to the world at all…it’s a matter of conforming to itself.

I have no problem with the Church requiring celibacy for it’s priests. It’s when they make an exception like that, that rocks my world.

Of all the things “Catholic” I learned growing up, it’s that priests and nuns were celibate…period…no ifs, ands, or buts.

I can’t tell my kids to be faithful to their spouses, if I have a gal on the side, no? Doesn’t mean that they WON’T be faithful to their spouses, but it sets a conflicting example.

Actually you can and should tell your child not to be unfaithful. Just because you are not perfect does not mean you cannot encourage others not to repeat the same mistakes you have.

I have never understood the logic that say “I have made a mistake. Therefore I am a hypocrite if I try to encourage others not to make the same mistake I did.” Sounds to me more like abdicating responsibility.

Also, in the context of this thread, that is not a valid comparison. The status of Lutheran and Anglican priests is special. When one converts to the Catholic Church, the Church recognizes that they may indeed have been called by God to priestly service. Also their priestly formation is similar to the Catholic priestly formation.

Another point to remember that a celibate priesthood is a discipline, not doctrine. It applies to the Latin Rite Church. Many other rites which are in full communion with Rome have a married priesthood. For Latin Rite Catholics, it is not generally permitted.

Others have addressed your individual points pretty well and I really do not have much to add. Seems to me you are blowing this way out of proportion.

I would also encourage you to use less invective and pejorative language and adopt a less aggressive style of posting. It is difficult to have a reasoned discussion with someone who uses such terms or whom we feel is attacking.

 

[Aramis]

How can the Roman Catholic Church allow Episcopalian priests who are married and some have children convert to Catholicism and be recognized as ordained in the Church where they are allowed to say Mass??
God is truth and he is not confusion. This rule allows confusion in the church. I have not had a Roman Catholic priest give me an explanation the makes sense. What is the justification here? What message are we sending our celibate priest who are discerning about the priesthood because they are lonely or have questions of family life?

There is no confusion: The celibacy requirement is a DISCIPLINE, not a Doctrine, not a Dogma. The Pope and the other Catholic Patriarchs can, and DO, waive it for various reasons and at various times.

In the East, priestly celebacy is not the universal norm. The Ukrainian and Carpetho-Rusyn tradition is parish priests tend to be married men, as do permanent deacons, while monastics and bishops are celibate, as are a few parish priests. (The married clergy in the Ruthenian/Carpetho-Rusyn-in-America were suppressed for almost a century…)

But just because he wears a phelonian and says the DL of St. John rather than the Mass approved by John XXIII or John Paul II does not make him any less a Catholic priest.

Therefore, when married ministers come to the realization that they are, in fact, not in union with the Church Christ founded, and still feel called to be ministers, it is a matter of discipline, and the Pope or Patriarch may waive it when they come and join a Catholic church. In many cases, these men are ordained to the prieshood, since (except for the Orthodox), they seldom have valid ordinations, and allowing the discipline to be relaxed allows them to make the final step and become Catholic ministers.

Now, a few (one a former episcopalian) choose to enter the deaconate, but not go on to the priesthood, and others, for various reasons, do not get indult from Rome, and so may not be ordained by the Bishop to the prieshood of the Roman church.

And some, like Orthodox priests who “jump the tiber”, are already Catholic Priests, and it is merely acknowleging that they have, in fact, been validly ordained, and may serve. With the rise of the Western Rite Orthodox, this is more likely to occur now than at almost any other historical time, and now more than ever, to include them coming into the Roman Church sui iuris.

If any confusion exists, it is not in church teachings, which say that celibate priests are a good thing, but married priests are priests too… but it is in the lack of proper catechism that so many do not know that there have ALWAYS been married priests in the Catholic church.

 

[Aramis]

First remember that this is Chruch Law NOT Doctrine. A Married man can be Ordained under current Church law with the permission of the Pope. An Ordained man cannot Marry, at all.

Not entirely true, either.

The Pope, and ONLY the Pope, may allow a priest or deacon to be laicized so that he may marry. But then he’s suspended from function at least until widowered… and usually until death.

After all, Father Tommy, who baptised me, realized that he had misread his vocation, and Pope John agreed with him… His wife, Ginny, also agrees. But, on his gravestone, it will still read “Rev. Thomas B.” Now, in an emergency, he can still function, and he’s still a priest. He’s just a priest not allowed to function, since Ordination is a permanent mark upon the soul.

A deacon I know, who had small children, was widowered… wife had cancer. Pope John Paul allowed him to remarry, but not to continue to function as a deacon, for the good of the children.

But he will still be burried in Alb and Stole.

 

[Brother_John]

I would also encourage you to use less invective and pejorative language and adopt a less aggressive style of posting. It is difficult to have a reasoned discussion with someone who uses such terms or whom we feel is attacking.

Thank you for your insight. It is equally difficult to have discussion with those who refuse to answer a question beyond hiding behind the “because the Church says so” rock.

It is fascinating to read so many threads, where posters trot out scripture, early church writings, and more recent writings of Popes and Bishops to defend any position the Church takes, yet on this issue…“because the Church says so” is all anyone can come up with to explain a clear contradiction.

:banghead:

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Not entirely true, either.

The Pope, and ONLY the Pope, may allow a priest or deacon to be laicized so that he may marry. But then he’s suspended from function at least until widowered… and usually until death.

After all, Father Tommy, who baptised me, realized that he had misread his vocation, and Pope John agreed with him… His wife, Ginny, also agrees. But, on his gravestone, it will still read “Rev. Thomas B.” Now, in an emergency, he can still function, and he’s still a priest. He’s just a priest not allowed to function, since Ordination is a permanent mark upon the soul.

A deacon I know, who had small children, was widowered… wife had cancer. Pope John Paul allowed him to remarry, but not to continue to function as a deacon, for the good of the children.

But he will still be burried in Alb and Stole.

You are correct. A priest who has been laicized is no longer a cleric. He is however still an Ordained man, and with the permission of the pope could enter a valid Marriage. A laicized priest does not automatically receive this permission, and Pope Benedict has indicated that it will no longer be as freely granted as before.

 

[wanner47]

It is fascinating to read so many threads, where posters trot out scripture, early church writings, and more recent writings of Popes and Bishops to defend any position the Church takes, yet on this issue…“because the Church says so” is all anyone can come up with to explain a clear contradiction.

:banghead:

Have we been reading the same thread?

The responses I’ve read have encompassed much more than a simple, “Because the Church says so.”

However, I find it odd that you claim to “love” the Catholic Church. It seems that if you did indeed “love” the Catholic Church, you would recognize and respect Her authority. Instead, you come across as a petulant, whiny child who doesn’t like to be told that he doesn’t know everything.

There’s no contradiction here. The same Church that has the authority to make laws also has the authority to dispense people, under very special circumstances, from those laws. Where’s the contradiction?

 

[marietta]

If a priest has been convicted of molestation/child abuse, is he then stripped of his ordination and ex-communicated?

Wondering,

marietta

 

[Brother_John]

you come across as a petulant, whiny child who doesn’t like to be told that he doesn’t know everything.

I am not questioning the authority of the Church. I am asking WHY would the Roman Catholic Church dispense someone (under any circumstances) from a discipline that is so basic to it’s structure? What is the reasoning?

When the Pope wrote against abortion, he gave REASONS. When the Pope wrote about Communion in the Hand, he gave REASONS. The Baltimore Catechism gave REASONS for what it said.

Nobody has given me a REASON, beyond to say that the Church has the authority to make or break it’s own rules. And yes, there has been a post or two saying to the effect that a minister/priest of another denomination saw the error of his ways and converted, but that does not address the issue of his celibacy.

And, from our friend, rpp, some words that might apply to others as well as myself…

I would also encourage you to use less invective and pejorative language and adopt a less aggressive style of posting. It is difficult to have a reasoned discussion with someone who uses such terms or whom we feel is attacking.

 

[1ke]

If a priest has been convicted of molestation/child abuse, is he then stripped of his ordination and ex-communicated?

Ordination, like baptism, is an indelible mark on the sould. It cannot be “stripped” or “undone.” Once a priest, always a preist. What the Church can, and does, do in these situations is to remove his faculties through a process of Canon Law-- meaning he is barred from acting in any priestly capacity (except in danger of death in which case he can baptize, hear confession, etc).

The penalty of excommunication falls under canon law juridical processes. But, no, he would not excommunicated. He would be in mortal sin and would be able to seek the Sacrament of Reconcilation like any other mortal sinner.

 

[1ke]

I am not questioning the authority of the Church. I am asking WHY would the Roman Catholic Church dispense someone (under any circumstances) from a discipline that is so basic to it’s structure? What is the reasoning?

When the Pope wrote against abortion, he gave REASONS. When the Pope wrote about Communion in the Hand, he gave REASONS. The Baltimore Catechism gave REASONS for what it said.

Nobody has given me a REASON, beyond to say that the Church has the authority to make or break it’s own rules.

I answered this question in post #3.

The reason the pastoral provision was made was because restoration of the unity of the Body of Christ is of supreme importance.

Making this provision has brought not only a few dozen former Episcopal priests into full communion with the Catholic Church but entire parishes and diocese wholesale. That is a worthy goal and a big reason for the pastoral provision.

Here’s a whole article basically saying what said in post 3-- it is a measure to help foster reunion with Rome… which is the goal of ecumenism as outlined in the documents of Vatican II and the papal encyclicals such as Ut Unum Sint.

 

[Brother_John]

I answered this question in post #3.

The reason the pastoral provision was made was because restoration of the unity of the Body of Christ is of supreme importance.

Making this provision has brought not only a few dozen former Episcopal priests into full communion with the Catholic Church but entire parishes and diocese wholesale. That is a worthy goal and a big reason for the pastoral provision.

Here’s a whole article basically saying what said in post 3-- it is a measure to help foster reunion with Rome… which is the goal of ecumenism as outlined in the documents of Vatican II and the papal encyclicals such as Ut Unum Sint.

mmmmmmmmmm…okay, finally something that makes sense…sort of reminds me of the parable of the vineyard

 

[wanner47]

I am not questioning the authority of the Church. I am asking WHY would the Roman Catholic Church dispense someone (under any circumstances) from a discipline that is so basic to it’s structure? What is the reasoning?

No, you didn’t ask that at all. You merely criticized the Church for an alleged “contradiction” to the discipline of priestly celibacy – quite bitterly, I might add. That’s why I gave the comment I did about your tone – so that you may think about how you come across when you think you are merely asking for reasons.

Also, from here:

It is clear in everyone’s mind that this is not a proving ground for optional celibacy in the Catholic Church. In fact, the special challenges of a married clergy mentioned above and recently pointed out by bishops of the Eastern Catholic Churches show the value of the norm of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom in the Western Church. More importantly, the growing crisis of theological and moral authority both in the Episcopal Church and in other Protestant denominations is likely to result in a new wave of priests, ministers and lay people seeking the sure home of the Catholic Church. They will bring to the Catholic Church the sound Christian traditions that have sustained them since the Protestant Reformation: a love for Sacred Scripture; joy in singing to the Lord; eagerness to spread the Word of God; and from the Anglicans a long and rich history of English in the liturgy. Perhaps the Pastoral Provision has served till now as the harbinger of this new springtime for Christianity in the United States.

 

[Brother_John]

It is truly amazing how three and five year converts to the Catholic Church can possess so much more knowledge and experience than someone who has been in the Church for their entire 47 years.

I stand humbled before you. I can only hope to gain half the wisdom and knowledge in my remaining days as some of you have garnered in less than five years in the faith.

 

[Brother_John]

No, you didn’t ask that at all. You merely criticized the Church for an alleged “contradiction” to the discipline of priestly celibacy – quite bitterly, I might add. That’s why I gave the comment I did about your tone – so that you may think about how you come across when you think you are merely asking for reasons.

What you overlook, is that this same subject has been beaten to death in other threads as well, with pretty much the same rhetoric.

If I choose to criticize the inconsistient application of a Church discipline, even “bitterly” as you so put it, that is my right.

I have a lifetime of experience and observation IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH to draw my opinions from…do you?

 

[bpbasilphx]

**How can the Roman Catholic Church allow Episcopalian priests who are married and some have children convert to Catholicism and be recognized as ordained in the Church where they are allowed to say Mass??
God is truth and he is not confusion. This rule allows confusion in the church. **

You may be confused, but it doesn’t confuse me, and it certainly doesn’t confuse the Church. There are three married Eastern Catholic priests in my city.

 

[wanner47]

What you overlook, is that this same subject has been beaten to death in other threads as well, with pretty much the same rhetoric.

And there’s your mistake, right there… labeling everything with which you disagree as “rhetoric.”

If I choose to criticize the inconsistient application of a Church discipline, even “bitterly” as you so put it, that is my right.

“To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.” – G.K. Chesterton

I have a lifetime of experience and observation IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH to draw my opinions from…do you?

Perhaps the fact that I’m a convert makes me appreciate the Church and the Church’s authority all the more, since I lived without it for 20+ years.

Here’s my question for you: What makes your “lifetime of experience and observation” superior to that of the Pope and the Magesterium?

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<
Nobody has given me a REASON, beyond to say that the Church has the authority to make or break it’s own rules.>>

**What you’re saying is you don’t like the reason you were given, though it should be good enough for you.

Why don’t you have the humility and obedience to accept it?**