More married priests into RCC?

[JReducation]

Well I did bring up the idea of having to compete for time with their families and said that the fact that we as lay persons lose out on something was beyond dispute

Which has already been addressed. The laity loses no more with a married priest than it would with a regular priest. To be honest, only a secular priest would have time kind of time that the laity wants form priests. I should say, some laity. Many are satisfied with what they have. A regular priest is not as available either. He’s not supposed to be. If he is, then there is something terribly wrong in his religious community.

Now as for the issue of recognizing that God has called them, my problem is with why not recognize that there might be people INSIDE the Roman Catholic Church who have been called in this way too?

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.

Such individuals inside the Church could surely do a better job than the converts because after all, they are more in-tune with and are aware of Roman Catholic devotions, sensibilities etc.

You’re assuming this and we would hope this is the case. But we cannot guarantee that it will be. There is no “surely” about it.

is there some doctrine that say that only those who are outside the Catholic Church get called in this very convenient way?

Yes. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.”

P.S. To tell you a story, I had a Catholic friend who wanted to change rites to a Byzantine rite (so that he can marry) and then change later on back to the Latin rite and be a married priest.

If he pulls it off and is caught, he will be excommunicated. The possibility of moving back and forth between Churches is not there. It’s not allowed by any of the codes of Canon Law, Latin or Eastern. Once you’re in, you’re in for life. You can only ask for one incardination.

The Church’s current stance seems to say that those converts may have a calling to a married priesthood but those inside the Church certainly do not.

There is nothing to be suspiscious about. The church is saying exactly this. This is her faith.

EDIT: Only thing I can think of as an answer is that the Church believes the following. Those inside the Church, if called, would have answered the call and entered (or will enter) the celibate priesthood. The ones outside, out of no fault of their own, didn’t know that and entered marriage. So since we cannot dissolve the marriage now we should recognize their other vocation as well.

This certainly is part of the reasoning. Those born into the Latin Church, if called, would respond within the normal means.

The issue with this line of reasoning is that it still acts on the idea that there are those who are called to both.

There are some called to both. Look at the Eastern Catholics. Those called to both are not born into the Latin Church.

Are we to postulate that simply being born Roman Catholic is God’s providential way of saying "you weren’t meant for two vocations?

You can be called to two vocations: priesthood + religious life = two callings.

Other than that, you’re only called to what the Church calls you. Christ does not contradict his Church and only speaks through her.

But I guess that is still logically consistent and might indeed be the case. Because even if a Latin rite priest wanted to celebrate the liturgy like an Eastern rite, he cannot do so because the Latin rite liturgy is defined a certain way and he has been bound by Canon law to obey. So he was never meant by God to celebrate the Eastern rite liturgy though that liturgy is equally valid.

That is not what the law says. He can apply for faculties in both rites.

Now that I think more about it, if this is indeed the position of the Church (God in his Divine Providence has made sure that no Roman Catholic is called to two vocations while those outside are called in this way), I think I can actually accept that

Good. Let’s go to lunch.

 

[JRKH]

I’m not sure what I said to merit this response. If you go back, please read the post to which I was responding. The poster was calling into question the fact that the Latin Church does not do this for its faithful. She was not asking a question.

Asking a question, as you say, is very legitimate.

Discussing why we do or don’t do something is equally legitimate.

Calling authority into question, when the authority has been legitimately exercised, is inappropriate or displays a lack of understanding of authority.

You are quite right Brother. We should not call into question church authority, legitimately exercised.
I apologize for “losing the train” of the discussion…

Peace
James

 

[ReddyFreddy]

My priest is married.

Haven’t thought about it really. He’s great, IMO.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Which has already been addressed. The laity loses no more with a married priest than it would with a regular priest. To be honest, only a secular priest would have time kind of time that the laity wants form priests. I should say, some laity. Many are satisfied with what they have. A regular priest is not as available either. He’s not supposed to be. If he is, then there is something terribly wrong in his religious community.

So what about the following:-

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. (1 Cor 7:32-34)

If I may anticipate, I think you might say that the above is merely an observation of the efficiency of a practice so it is not faith and morals. Hence does not enjoy infallibility. But, then one can say the same regarding the Church’s stance that both are equally capable as merely an observation that one disagrees with, no?

Good. Let’s go to lunch.

Yes! I think that part of the issue is certainly settled

 

[anp1215]

Finally, we have a tradition of married parish priests in the Catholic Church, just not in the Latin Church. The other 22 Catholic Churches have married parish priests. The issue at hand is that this is new to the Latin Church. The Roman Catholics have to get used to it and tweak some things here and there, just as the Eastern Catholics do. It’s not a big deal to do. As I said, we do it for religious.

Do all of the Eastern Churches have married priests? I remember hearing that some do, but others have a discipline of celibacy like the Latin Church.

 

[Eufrosnia]

But we cannot do that with our men in the Latin Church. Peter has spoken on this matter. The matter is closed unless Peter wishes to reopen it. It’s not even worth discussing it, since it is not in our power to change it and we have no right to disagree.

Pope Paul VI made this very clear. We have a moral duty to submit to the Pope’s decisions and to accept them are binding on us. I don’t really see why Latin Catholics would even want to discuss something that they have no right to discuss. Bl. John Paul II made it very clear that this is not an option for those born into the Roman Catholic Church.

I feel that some people have a need to discuss everything that the popes tell us “Case Closed”. I’m remembering when I was a child. If my mother said, “Case Closed” and we continued to discuss it, my father would come behind and blast you out of your shoes. This was his wife and she had spoken.

I wonder if Christ doesn’t feel the same about us and how we try to ignore his bride or second guess her every step of the way.

I am not sure this is correct though for all Papal decisions and I … I opened a thread regarding this very very issue which has mysteriously been pulled and I can’t even access it!

Anyway, I initially thought you were referring to LG about the unconditional binding nature of this authority to all Papal decisions/commands. But it seems you are referring to something from Pope Paul VI which I am not aware of. If you could perhaps PM me the name of the Pope Paul VI’s document (or a link to it) that states this, I will be very grateful.

It is a shame though that we cannot discuss this specific issue in detail on that thread I created

 

[clem456]

So what about the following:-

Theology of the Body has a long treatment of this subject.
roughly chapters 73 through 84.
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tbind.htm

I am not going to attempt to summarize.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Theology of the Body has a long treatment of this subject.
roughly chapters 73 through 84.
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tbind.htm

I am not going to attempt to summarize.

Well I guess I will have to take sometime ( ) to get back to you if I have any questions still after reading it.

EDIT: Actually going through Chapter 73, it says the following in the last section

In his pronouncement, did Christ perhaps suggest the superiority of continence for the kingdom of heaven to matrimony? Certainly, he said that this is an exceptional vocation, not a common one. In addition he affirmed that it is especially important and necessary to the kingdom of heaven. If we understand superiority to matrimony in this sense, we must admit that Christ set it out implicitly. However, he did not express it directly. Only Paul will say of those who choose matrimony that they do “well.” About those who are willing to live in voluntary continence, he will say that they do “better”

That is also the opinion of the whole of Tradition, both doctrinal and pastoral.

So isn’t Bl. JP II actually agreeing with what I said?

 

[clem456]

Well I guess I will have to take sometime ( ) to get back to you if I have any questions still after reading it.

make sure you pack a lunch and take a change of clothes.

I am not your man for questions.

 

[Eufrosnia]

make sure you pack a lunch and take a change of clothes.

I am not your man for questions.

Haha, well I have read some chapters around Chapters 2x and 3x. I’ve always approached it on a subject by subject basis since its rather long.

However, I had the following question after reading Chapter 73 (which I edited to the original post but in case you missed it…)

---

Actually going through Chapter 73, it says the following in the last section

In his pronouncement, did Christ perhaps suggest the superiority of continence for the kingdom of heaven to matrimony? Certainly, he said that this is an exceptional vocation, not a common one. In addition he affirmed that it is especially important and necessary to the kingdom of heaven. If we understand superiority to matrimony in this sense, we must admit that Christ set it out implicitly. However, he did not express it directly. Only Paul will say of those who choose matrimony that they do “well.” About those who are willing to live in voluntary continence, he will say that they do “better”

That is also the opinion of the whole of Tradition, both doctrinal and pastoral.

So isn’t Bl. JP II actually agreeing with what I said?

 

[clem456]

Haha, well I have read some chapters around Chapters 2x and 3x. I’ve always approached it on a subject by subject basis since its rather long.

However, I had the following question after reading Chapter 73 (which I edited to the original post but in case you missed it…)

---

Actually going through Chapter 73, it says the following in the last section

So isn’t Bl. JP II actually agreeing with what I said?

I dunno.
I would tend to think that he does not see the exclusive element that you may see. The element that precludes a married person from receving God’s graces to live as a priest. That’s the nut of it, isn’t it? It’s God’s to bestow grace as he sees fit. Chapter 84 deals with this aspect a little more.

 

[JReducation]

My priest is married.

Haven’t thought about it really. He’s great, IMO.

Legally married, I hope.

So what about the following:-

If I may anticipate, I think you might say that the above is merely an observation of the efficiency of a practice so it is not faith and morals. Hence does not enjoy infallibility. But, then one can say the same regarding the Church’s stance that both are equally capable as merely an observation that one disagrees with, no?

I was going there, but someone beat me to it. Bl. John Paul addresses it in TOB and so did the Council of Trent.

Do all of the Eastern Churches have married priests? I remember hearing that some do, but others have a discipline of celibacy like the Latin Church.

I don’t have contact with all 22 Churches. To the best of my knowledge, no. Not all 22 ordain married men as the norm.

I am not sure this is correct though for all Papal decisions and I … I opened a thread regarding this very very issue which has mysteriously been pulled and I can’t even access it!

Ven. Paul VI was not speaking about celibacy, but he was speaking about the authority of the pope. He was very stern about it. It’s in this letter to Archbishop Lefebvre.
**
In regard to the Pope, every Catholic admits that the words of Jesus to Peter determine also the charge of Peter’s legitimate successors: “. . . whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” (Mt. 16:19); “. . .feed my sheep” (Jn. 21:17); “. . .confirm your brethren” (Lk. 22:32). And the First Vatican Council specified in these terms the assent due to the sovereign pontiff: "The pastors of every rank and of every rite and the faithful, each separately and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and of true obedience, not only in questions of faith and morals, but also in those that touch upon the discipline and government of the church throughout the entire world. **

jloughnan.tripod.com/pvi2lefebvre.htm

We hate the word “subordination”. But that’s what the Church is. It’s a system of subordination where one man alone has all the power and all the authority in the universe to say “These are the rules of the game and God agrees with me.” Why? Because he has Christ’s promise that heaven will agree. It takes us back to "Whatever you bind . . . "

Haha, well I have read some chapters around Chapters 2x and 3x. I’ve always approached it on a subject by subject basis since its rather long.

However, I had the following question after reading Chapter 73 (which I edited to the original post but in case you missed it…)

---

Actually going through Chapter 73, it says the following in the last section

So isn’t Bl. JP II actually agreeing with what I 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.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

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!

 

[RyanBlack]

Even in the Eastern Churches, the married priest is the exception not the norm.

If you are specifically talking about the Catholic Eastern Churches, this is true probably outside of the traditional Eastern territories, and it is not true of the Orthodox at all. In the traditional territories of the Eastern Churches, parish priests tend to be married, while celibate Eastern priests tend to be monastics.

 

[JReducation]

If you are specifically talking about the Catholic Eastern Churches, this is true probably outside of the traditional Eastern territories, and it is not true of the Orthodox at all. In the traditional territories of the Eastern Churches, parish priests tend to be married, while celibate Eastern priests tend to be monastics.

It’s more common in the Eastern regions than in Europe and the Americas.

 

[JReducation]

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!

You had not noticed this? :yup:

 

[theistgal]

What about it troubles you? I have no problems with a married priesthood. It’s an ancient practice and I think alot of good can come of it

Easy for you to say, not being a Roman Catholic.

Sorry, I just had to respond to this!

Members of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church are just as much “Roman Catholics” as members of the Latin Rite!

 

[Mrs_Sally]

You had not noticed this? :yup:

As I said, I am apparently very slow in understanding. I will have to speak to my parish priest about his sermons/homilies…

 

[AnthonyJ]

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.

The usual tradition is that a priest is chosen from a family with siblings. The siblings are supposed to take care of the parents. The priest is supposed to dedicate himself to his work.

It is pretty logical but as you can see, you are only bringing up corner cases like “what if he has to take care of his parents” or “what is he can’t work long hours due to a medical condition” etc. These are just exceptions. The general rule is based on what is logical. Now the exception.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

Easy for you to say, not being a Roman Catholic.

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…