More married priests into RCC?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fabio_rocha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AnthonyJ said:
My former pastor had to take a leave of absence when his father got sick. After his father passed away, he took another leave of absence, when his sister was diagnosed with cancer. He stepped down as pastor, since he felt couldn’t take care of his family and the parish at the same time. As a celibate priest, he didn’t have a wife and kids, but he had other family that needed his attention. Just one example that celibate priests don’t necessarily have more free time to care for their flocks than married ones.
Click to expand...
There are always exceptions… When one speaks of general policy, one can only devise based on the general.
 
JReducation said:
NO. You may be in agreement with what he said. The difference between Bl. John Paul, you and me is that he was the pope at the time that he said this. In other words, he had the authority to say it. We do not. We can repeat it.

I think this touches on something very important that all of us do at some time or another in our Catholic lives. We try to make rules for the Church. Then, when we hear something similar coming from the Magisterium we say, “The Church agrees with me.”

No, the Church can never agree with us, because the Church is bigger, has greater authority and she transcends. We’re the fleas looking up at the St. Bernard, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
When I say the “Church agrees with me on this issue”, it is more of a phrase of communication to imply that I am not contradicting rather than trying to say “The Church has to agree with Eufrosnia” though.

But you do admit that Bl. JP II does say that there is a difference between married and celibate, yes? That one is “good” and the other is “better”?
 
porthos11 said:
Why would it? Married priests in the Catholic Church are nothing new. Besides, the “Vatican II ecumenism” you’re talking about is bringing entire flocks and parishes into the Catholic Church and from what I’ve seen, they are true, faithful Catholics. That thing you refer to as “Vatican II ecumenism” is true ecumenism, that is, bringing people into the true Church.

So why should their married priests bother you at all?
Click to expand...
I was discerning the Priesthood. I was going to leave earlier this month for seminary until I found my girlfriend. I still feel called to the Priesthood but I faced the realization that I am not strong enough to give up a family of my own. I support a celibate Priesthood but I admit it aggravates me to no end to see protestant “ministers” who are married becoming ordained Roman Catholic Priests. That option was closed to me because I am Catholic. I think Priestly celibacy should be practiced by those able to commit to it, and not enforced on all Roman Catholics. It’s not fair that I have to turn my back on what possibly was my particular vocation because I cannot have both a family and service to the Church as a Priest, yet a protestant can? Someone who was once surrounded by heretical theology? If only there were more Eastern Parishes near me, I might be able to fully explore what God is calling me too. And not turn my back on one call in exchange for another 😦
 
Mrs_Sally said:
OK, I am very slow… 😊

I just got the broad meaning of “Whatever you bind on earth, is bound in heaven…”

I always read it to mean that the Church is doing what God wants. But it actually says that what Peter does, God affirms. Peter speaks and heaven complies.

WOW!

Going to sit with my cup of tea and meditate on this a moment!
Click to expand...
Well, apparently you aren’t the only one! I’ve read that verse I don’t know how many times and wondered what it meant. It’s significant for sure but I was all: :confused:
 
SaintPatrick333 said:
Someone who was once surrounded by heretical theology?
Click to expand...
I hope you didn’t mean this the way it comes across, but it really sounds as if you view converts as somehow less Catholic.
SaintPatrick333 said:
If only there were more Eastern Parishes near me, I might be able to fully explore what God is calling me too. And not turn my back on one call in exchange for another 😦
Click to expand...
That really wouldn’t make any difference. Latin Catholics who are granted a change of ritual are generally not permitted to be ordained to the priesthood unless they are celibate.
 
SaintPatrick333 said:
I was discerning the Priesthood. I was going to leave earlier this month for seminary until I found my girlfriend. I still feel called to the Priesthood but I faced the realization that I am not strong enough to give up a family of my own. I support a celibate Priesthood but I admit it aggravates me to no end to see protestant “ministers” who are married becoming ordained Roman Catholic Priests. That option was closed to me because I am Catholic. I think Priestly celibacy should be practiced by those able to commit to it, and not enforced on all Roman Catholics. It’s not fair that I have to turn my back on what possibly was my particular vocation because I cannot have both a family and service to the Church as a Priest, yet a protestant can? Someone who was once surrounded by heretical theology? If only there were more Eastern Parishes near me, I might be able to fully explore what God is calling me too. And not turn my back on one call in exchange for another 😦
Click to expand...
Wow, that was rough! So the fact that the Church has investigated these men and deemed them prepared and worthy for ordination is not enough? You do realize that it is a small proportion of converts that go on to become priests. Many ministers do find work in the Church, but many do not and go on to ordinary secular careers.

It also is so very disingenuous for you to contemplate converting so that you could possible be married and a priest, when you do not believe that to be the best way to be a priest.

In any case, it sounds like you have much work to do in formation whether you become a priest or get married.
 
ReddyFreddy said:
Well, apparently you aren’t the only one! I’ve read that verse I don’t know how many times and wondered what it meant. It’s significant for sure but I was all: :confused:
Click to expand...
Thanks! I feel better and I’m glad my revelation was helpful!!
 
I have to wonder here…are most Romans aware that married priests are to refrain from sexual intercourse with their wives the night before they celebrate Mass/Divine Liturgy?

The reason I bring this up is that I see(both online and in real life) a lot of Romans in favor of married priests (which is good) but given the Roman discipline of daily Mass, could be problematic if the priest was the only one at a parish. Daily Divine Liturgies are not the norm in the East (except perhaps in monasteries where everyone is celibate anyway)
 
Mrs_Sally said:
As I said, I am apparently very slow in understanding. I will have to speak to my parish priest about his sermons/homilies… 😃
Click to expand...
Oh oh, what did the poor man do now?
Angel_Gabriel said:
That was rather harsh…canonically I am still a Latin…but I am in the process of transferring to the UGCC. I don’t identify as Roman anymore and I don’t keep the Roman fasts/holy days either unless they happen to coincide with the Byzantine ones.

Nevertheless, even when I was growing up (I was raised in a semi- cradle Roman Catholic environment) and was informed of the East’s tradition of married clergy, I had thought that a married priesthood was pretty awesome…
Click to expand...
Let’s do some separating here please. I see this issue becoming as damaging as what we had after Vatican I regarding regular priests.

The minute we started to use the term religious priests instead of regular priests, we blended religious life and the priesthood. Eventually, people could no longer see the difference. The worse part was that the priests themselves could not see the difference. Two vocations, which are very different, suddenly became one. As a result, a lot of damage was done to thousands of religious who were not priests. They were dismissed as insignificant and they were denied their rights in the religious life.

Let’s get away from such terms as “married priesthood”. There is no such thing and never was. There have always been married men who are priests. There always will be. Notice that the word men falls between the words married and priest. Married MEN who are priests. The term married priesthood can also lead to the next question, why not a married priesthood that includes women? When you insert the word men in the middle, it becomes very clear that the vocation to the priesthood is gender specific, but not marriage specific. In other words, the question of celibacy is separate from the definition of priest.

It is the will of the Holy Spirit that Latin Catholic men be called to the priesthood only from among those who are not married. They may have been married and are widowed. Observe that the key term is “married”.

The second point that I’d like to address is the one made by the young man that resents Protestants being ordained Catholic priests. The resentment may stem from the point of view that one takes. If we look at these men as Protestants, then it will cause a problem. However, the Church does not look at them as Protestants. The Church looks at them as converts to the Catholic faith.

We have to be very careful, because words have meaning. This would be very similar to me saying that all of you who are former Protestants have no right to tell me about Judeo-Catholic tradition, because I’m looking at you through the wrong lens. If I said that to you, you would be up in arms. There are many of you who have come from the Protestant tradition. But I don’t look at you as Protestants, but as converts to Catholicism.

This is almost parallel to the argument in Acts regarding the Jewish and Gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians kept looking at their brothers and sisters as Gentiles, even though they were converts to Christianity, therefore Christians.

The fact that one has been exposed to error, does not disqualify one from Holy Orders or from religious life.

Let me throw something out there and see how those of you who are complaining respond to this. Let’s say that the Church said that every former Episcopal priest who is single can now apply to become a religious brother (not a priest) and will not have to go through 10 years of formation as I have gone through. Is that OK with you folks?
 
Angel_Gabriel said:
I have to wonder here…are most Romans aware that married priests are to refrain from sexual intercourse with their wives the night before they celebrate Mass/Divine Liturgy?
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t be a problem - there’s always the daytime. 😉
 
JReducation said:
They don’t exist. God does not call where man cannot go. Men born into the Latin Church who are married can’t be called to the priesthood, because they can’t go there. God is not an unjust God. He would not call someone to some place where that person cannot go.

In addition, God never works in contest with His Church, but through his Church. If Peter binds so does God. We have this promise from Christ himself. The issue of ordaining married men born in the Latin Church has been closed for centuries. Therefore, God has closed the book on this. It’s that simple. This is our faith.

As we say “This is our faith. This is the faith of the Church.” Whatever Peter binds, will be bound in heaven. There are no two cents about it.

Finally, we have been told not to bring this up again. Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict have said that they will not even acknowledge the address if it’s brought up again. Instead, people who are bringing it up and are caught are being severely punished. I know one priest who has been suspended. I know of a religious sister who has been put on administrative leave. I know of a lay Catholic group that has been threatened with excommunication. I know someone who pushed the envelop on this and got a letter telling him that he is excommunicated. Rome is taking dissent on this and several other issues very seriously. Rome is not making a public production of her disciplinary actions. It’s not her style.
Click to expand...
Good stuff, there, Brother Jr.

I am also reading here and there in the popular press about religious/clergy/lay associations ‘getting their collars felt’ on these issues. They get leeway to recant and if they don’t, further sanctions occur. It’s pleasing to see. Not their discomfort, but seeing the Church grinding slowly and effectively in due course.
 
Actually, that was a lie. It is pleasing to see their discomfort. 😉
 
Eufrosnia said:
Well its logical. Lets take the criterion of time available for ones commitment.

The married priest has to divide that time to take care of his wife and children. The celibate priest has all the time to himself.

What you are asking is like “Why do you say that the two people with equal production capabilities produce more compared to the one who works less”. Its just logically true. The only reason why it won’t be true is if the person who works extra time doesn’t actually do anything with that time.
Click to expand...
You are outright saying that Eastern Rite married priests are not being as loyal to their parish as they should be. That’s is truly debatable.
 
Angel_Gabriel said:
I have to wonder here…are most Romans aware that married priests are to refrain from sexual intercourse with their wives the night before they celebrate Mass/Divine Liturgy?

The reason I bring this up is that I see(both online and in real life) a lot of Romans in favor of married priests (which is good) but given the Roman discipline of daily Mass, could be problematic if the priest was the only one at a parish. Daily Divine Liturgies are not the norm in the East (except perhaps in monasteries where everyone is celibate anyway)
Click to expand...
a very very good point indeed.

i wonder why nobody has replied to your post?

that aside…

the O P. im in favour of married ex-Anglican and other denominations joining the Church,why not.

and i also believe the discipline in the celibacy of priests to be to be ordained in the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Tomdstone said:
Perhaps because it is a discipline which can be changed.
Click to expand...
well take a look at the post that i said was a good post to the replies to some of the posts, here…
Originally Posted by Angel Gabriel
I have to wonder here…are most Romans aware that married priests are to refrain from sexual intercourse with their wives the night before they celebrate Mass/Divine Liturgy?
Click to expand...
The reason I bring this up is that I see(both online and in real life) a lot of Romans in favor of married priests (which is good) but given the Roman discipline of daily Mass, could be problematic if the priest was the only one at a parish. Daily Divine Liturgies are not the norm in the East (except perhaps in monasteries where everyone is celibate anyway)
Click to expand...
now to serve mass like the Roman Catholic priest does,every day in my country(U K)you would be celibate.now to get married is to have a family from man and woman.this would not happen and make the marriage void.just like what the homosexuals are trying to do.marriage is not about loving one another.its about having and raising children.it wouldnt happen.

the converts who bring a wife and children i should imagine would be given duties that dont fit the bill with daily mass.

so there would be no change for the discipline…
 
doormouse73 said:
now to serve mass like the Roman Catholic priest does,every day in my country(U K)you would be celibate.now to get married is to have a family from man and woman.this would not happen and make the marriage void.just like what the homosexuals are trying to do.marriage is not about loving one another.its about having and raising children.it wouldnt happen.
Click to expand...
:bigyikes:…:bigyikes:
 
doormouse73 said:
well take a look at the post that i said was a good post to the replies to some of the posts, here…

now to serve mass like the Roman Catholic priest does,every day in my country(U K)you would be celibate.now to get married is to have a family from man and woman.this would not happen and make the marriage void.just like what the homosexuals are trying to do.marriage is not about loving one another.its about having and raising children.it wouldnt happen.

the converts who bring a wife and children i should imagine would be given duties that dont fit the bill with daily mass.

so there would be no change for the discipline…
Click to expand...
well I have to slightly disagree…marriage is about loving your spouse/being united AND having children…afterall there are lots of married men and women who can’t have children and who aren’t able to adopt.
 
Angel_Gabriel said:
I have to wonder here…are most Romans aware that married priests are to refrain from sexual intercourse with their wives the night before they celebrate Mass/Divine Liturgy?

The reason I bring this up is that **I see(both online and in real life) a lot of Romans in favor of married priests (which is good) **but given the Roman discipline of daily Mass, could be problematic if the priest was the only one at a parish. Daily Divine Liturgies are not the norm in the East (except perhaps in monasteries where everyone is celibate anyway)
Click to expand...
No, it’s not good, it’s dissidence. A refusal to accept the Church’s authority on the matter.

You are welcome to disagree of course, but it won’t sway Rome 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top