married priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter bill_karweik
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, married clergy were allowed until the twelfth century. Perhaps it could be like the way the Orthodox do it. Priests could marry, but those in higher offices would have to be celibate. Of course clergy such as friars should not have this option, but there is a historical precedent for the marriage of priests.
 
Lapey said:
It is opinion, your opinion. The canon does not oblige a cleric who is not living a state of celibacy. Please refer to teh authority, teh magisterium. The Bishops do not enforce it because it is not a requirement.

As far as your note, why would I want to be priest? I am a deacon, husband, and father of three teens. I have more than I can handle now!

I am not a “mini” priest, I am a deacon. I have no ambition to be a priest.

frvanhove.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/letter-of-cardinal-francesco-palmerio-to-cardinal-timothy-dolan-on-the-subject-of-canon-277-%C2%A7-1/

Please do some research on this matter, those who say I am bound speak of their reasoning and opinions; those who have authority have spoken clearly that the married clergy are not bound.

PS. Dr. Peters is a very well respected Canonist who is of the other opinion and posts here on these forums occasionally. Maily when this topic comes up and I normally come to refute his opinion with my practical knowledge and magisterium’s statements.
Click to expand...
Look…it is not my opinion I posted. I offered no opinion on the matter at hand. I posted the fact of canon law… copied directly from the Vatican website. I informed of the canon law and posted it…that’s all. You (finally) posted the authoritative clarification, which would have been nice to see on your first responses instead of getting your hackles raised and flexing your intellectual muscle. A little fraternal correction if you will. You think priests should be allowed to be married? That is the question here. I didn’t know if you were a permanent or a transitional deacon… that is why I asked if you wanted to be a priest.
 
cavaleriesoldaa said:
This is NOT Church law, nor has it ever been. It’s a matter of voluntary discipline. Only Latin Rite Priests most obey it (that I’m aware of). None of the other 27 Rites have this discipline. Therefore, it is a discipline of the Latin Rite, not Universal Church Law. Again, if you do not agree with the discipline, join a different Rite.
.
Click to expand...
It was canon law from about 800 to 1150 AD… after which married men were barred from ordination within the Roman rite.
 
Armor_of_Light said:
Look…it is not my opinion I posted. I offered no opinion on the matter at hand. I posted the fact of canon law… copied directly from the Vatican website. I informed of the canon law and posted it…that’s all. You (finally) posted the authoritative clarification, which would have been nice to see on your first responses instead of getting your hackles raised and flexing your intellectual muscle. A little fraternal correction if you will. You think priests should be allowed to be married? That is the question here. I didn’t know if you were a permanent or a transitional deacon… that is why I asked if you wanted to be a priest.
Click to expand...
I am sorry if I offended you. That was not my intent my intent was fraternal correction. I was not in position to post the link at first I had to find it again. As far as married priest I say not completely. I believe the Church has it right. Celibacy has its role, marriage and celibacy work together they are not opposed. One shows the beauty of the other. One is not greater than the other. Btw, as far as flexing my intelectual muscle, I’m not sure I have any of those.😃
 
Our director of liturgy is a permanent deacon. He’s in his mid-40s, and has been a deacon almost 10 years, I think. He has 11 kids. They youngest is 3. He’s obviously not remaining continent. If that’s the rule, why hasn’t he been reprimanded? Our other deacons (he’s not actually “our” deacon, he’s assigned at another parish, but is employed by ours as director of liturgy) are much older, and their children are grown. Obviously, they’d have to “admit” to having sex with their wives, there’d be no “proof”, but when your wife is bearing children, it’s kind of hard to deny. I’m sure he’s not the only deacon in this situation, as men can become deacons at 35, and married couples can still have children up until their late 40s (my dh was 42 when our youngest child was born. He’s 44 now and we may have more!). I’m thinking very few Bishops agree with that interpretation of the canon!

In Christ,
Ellen
 
ALLGIRLS said:
Our director of liturgy is a permanent deacon. He’s in his mid-40s, and has been a deacon almost 10 years, I think. He has 11 kids. They youngest is 3. He’s obviously not remaining continent. If that’s the rule, why hasn’t he been reprimanded? Our other deacons (he’s not actually “our” deacon, he’s assigned at another parish, but is employed by ours as director of liturgy) are much older, and their children are grown. Obviously, they’d have to “admit” to having sex with their wives, there’d be no “proof”, but when your wife is bearing children, it’s kind of hard to deny. I’m sure he’s not the only deacon in this situation, as men can become deacons at 35, and married couples can still have children up until their late 40s (my dh was 42 when our youngest child was born. He’s 44 now and we may have more!). I’m thinking very few Bishops agree with that interpretation of the canon!

In Christ,
Ellen
Click to expand...
You are right Ellen. Very few agree with that interpretation because it is in error according to the committee assigned to interpreting the text of canon law. But again, Dr. Ed Peters make some very valid and respected points to the argument of the opposing interpretation. Check out his blog where he lays out a very good argument. I do not have the link but a simple search with produce it for you.

Let me ask you and anyone, isn’t the witness that this deacon you mention an amazing one? Dedicated to serving Mother Church in an ordained minister’s role and also raising what appears in all sense of the word a true Catholic family? Maybe it’s just from my vantage point that this is what I see.

On the other hand as I work with Holy Priests I say the same thing about these men. What an awesome witness that they give to the Gospel of Jesus Christ! They do in fact lay down their lives for their spouse, the Church! Celibacy is not a disorder, it is not an affliction, it is praise worthy. The celibate state of life is an accent to the married state. If a priest does in fact understand his state of life he will recognize this beauty.

I believe the Church has acted wisely with the pastoral provision to bring in Anglican and other priests/ministers and validly ordaining the worthy; even if they are married. But in no way does this mean Mother Church will or should abandon the tradition of a celibate clergy. Both have their roles.
 
Lapey said:
Let me ask you and anyone, isn’t the witness that this deacon you mention an amazing one? Dedicated to serving Mother Church in an ordained minister’s role and also raising what appears in all sense of the word a true Catholic family? Maybe it’s just from my vantage point that this is what I see.
Click to expand...
I agree.

My parish currently has ten permanent deacons and we have a married priest. (We previously had two other permanent deacons who have since passed away.) Our parish is coming up on our 25th anniversary and all but two of those deacons were members of the parish prior to ordination. We have been very blessed.

But your comment about the pro-life witness of the deacon with the 11 children has me wondering about something. In my archdiocese the wives of would-be deacons are expected to complete the same educational program that the husbands do. There have been a few younger couples that have gone through the program but for the most part the expectations on the wives are too much for a couple with young children to handle.

I am wondering what expectations forum members think *should *be made of the wives of men who are to be ordained to the diaconate or priesthood of the Roman Church?
 
SMHW said:
I agree.

In my archdiocese the wives of would-be deacons are expected to complete the same educational program that the husbands do. There have been a few younger couples that have gone through the program but for the most part the expectations on the wives are too much for a couple with young children to handle.

I am wondering what expectations forum members think *should *be made of the wives of men who are to be ordained to the diaconate or priesthood of the Roman Church?
Click to expand...
I think it is a wonderful thing to offer the wives the same educational opportunity, but extremely unfair to require it. Although the wife has to give permission for her husband’s ordination (to the priesthood or to the diaconate), it is not her ordination. Wives have their own lives and interests and many might not be drawn to the deep study of theology required for ordination. Some might not even be intellectually suited to such study. Neither situation makes her any less suited to the role of deacon’s wife.
 
Lapey said:
As far as your note, why would I want to be priest? I am a deacon, husband, and father of three teens. I have more than I can handle now!

I am not a “mini” priest, I am a deacon. I have no ambition to be a priest.
Click to expand...
Many permanent deacons (half my dad’s class) would have gone into the priesthood had it been opened to them. My dad strongly considered translating to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in order to enter the priesthood as a married man. (Mom said No! She didn’t want to learn Ukrainian.) Only later was the deaconate program for permanent deacons created in the Roman church.
 
Armor_of_Light said:
All ordained (deacons, too) are required by the Code of canon Law to practice perfect continence…married or not. That change your mind?
Click to expand...
So that means that even after a married man is ordained a deacon, he is forbidden from being intimate with his wife for the rest of his life?
 
I firmly believe it is a monetary issue. It is easier to pay a priest 30 or 40 thousand with health insurance than an entire family.

I would welcome a married clergy, and, frankly, be much more comfortable with one. The only priest I have ever felt completely at home with had been a married man. A married man can be much more pastoral, I think. There is something unnatural and, frankly, unsettling about a bachelor. I crave having a real pastor, but I have never had one, and I fear will never get one in the Catholic Church. I will have to do without.
 
Lapey said:
No this is not true. Look back through the thread and you’ll see.
Click to expand...
Good morning Deacon Gary-

Thank you for the responses over the weekend.
Thank you for posting the correction and clarification to the code of canon law. Regular schmoes like me see “code of canon law” and assume that is the binding word on an issue, and you have shown how the seemingly iron-clad letter of the law is subject to interpretation. I’m just glad we don’t do that with the Bible. Too much.

To anyone reading this thread I do apologize for only providing half an answer.
 
Armor_of_Light said:
Good morning Deacon Gary-

Thank you for the responses over the weekend.
Thank you for posting the correction and clarification to the code of canon law. Regular schmoes like me see “code of canon law” and assume that is the binding word on an issue, and you have shown how the seemingly iron-clad letter of the law is subject to interpretation. I’m just glad we don’t do that with the Bible. Too much.

To anyone reading this thread I do apologize for only providing half an answer.
Click to expand...
It’s all good my brother! What you posted is true for clerics living the celibate state of life; those who do not live this state are not bound. It’s not really an interpretation but as with the bible, it has to be taken in its entirety and in context; and the Magisterium has the final word on its implementation.

Peace and all good to you!👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top