Optional Celibacy in the Priesthood

[JReducation]

You tend to nitpick. The point is he violated his vows, rather publicly, I might add, and his order handled it very badly from the beginning, essentially enabling his lover and him by constant payments of money, essentially permitting the order to be blackmailed in order to buy her silence. He should have been dismissed from the order, his vows and the priesthood early on, by whatever means at the disposal of his order and Rome. Now it ends up as just another scandal, following on the heels of the bishop-child-pornography-collector, with more in the wings.

That’s the point that I was trying to make before. He’s more than a priest. He’s also a friar in solemn vows. You cannot dismiss a religious in solemn vows that easily. If the person shows contrition for his sin, then the case has to be closed. The Rule of St. Francis calls for three corrections, three visits from the canonical visitator, three letters and then dismissal. If somewhere in the process, the behavior stops, the religious in solemn vows many not be dismissed from the Order. The solemn vow takes trumps every other concern, per the rule of St. Francis and the Bull of Pope Honoriu.

Priests in solemn vows are not simply priests, they are exempt religious. They can’t be touched by the rule that apply to other priests. They are not secular priests. You can’t laicize a solemnly professed religious, even if he’s not ordained.

It’s not I that am nit-picking. It’s that many people do not understand that rules of religious orders and the Papal Bulls that protect them. They don’t normally come under canon law. They are laws unto themselves, except in those areas that are not addressed in the rule, then you apply to canon law for guidance.

In this case, the friar did what he was told to do, the woman went on to remarry and the order did what it had agreed to do. As far as the rule of St. Francis is concerned and canon law, the friar was in good standing with the order. If there is a second or other incident, then the case has to be reopened and reexamined. However, the rule of the order is very clear that you cannot hold someone’s old sins over his head. Of course, this is going to depend on how much time has passed between one event and another and how, if at all, they are related. St. Francis made it very difficult for friars to be dismissed from the order; but they could be penalized while remaining in the order.

If you notice, this is all dealt with within the orders with solemn vows, not at the Holy See. Once the Holy See has put a Papal Bull on a Holy Rule, no one can tinker with it. It has to be followed as it, unless the Holy See go through an entire process of chaning the rule first. This applies to Carmelites, Francisans, Augustinians (indluding Dominicans and Praemonstaterian), Benedictines, and Basilians. These rules cannot be trumped.

I hope this explains why you can’t dismiss any religious in solemn vows, priest, lay brother or nun. You can dimiss religious in simple vows. They’re in another category of religious life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PAboy57]

I think our priests stand out among all clergy because of their dedication only to God. Man is not smart enough to serve 2 masters. Bless our priests dear Lord. Amen

 

[JReducation]

I think our priests stand out among all clergy because of their dedication only to God. Man is not smart enough to serve 2 masters. Bless our priests dear Lord. Amen

I hope you’re including all of our married priests and widowed priests in both East and West.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You tend to nitpick. The point is he violated his vows, rather publicly, I might add, and his order handled it very badly from the beginning, essentially enabling his lover and him by constant payments of money, essentially permitting the order to be blackmailed in order to buy her silence. He should have been dismissed from the order, his vows and the priesthood early on, by whatever means at the disposal of his order and Rome. Now it ends up as just another scandal, following on the heels of the bishop-child-pornography-collector, with more in the wings.

The point of this thread is the idea of making celibacy optional for the priesthood.

It has nothing to do with religious in vows.

It has nothing to do with the breaking of vows.

It has nothing to do with how religious are dealt with when they do break their vows.

This post of yours had nothing to do with the topic of this thread other than to push some agenda of yours.

We nit pick because we must. We nit pick because others try to muddy up the waters and steer discussions to topics they wish to discuss rather than discussing the topic as posted.

 

[mercer87]

The thread has started to circle the drain, and that’s why the mandate will never change. People want to try to lump religious and diocesan priests together, the female ordination issue surfaces even though it’s separate, all sorts of agendas start popping up, and the issue at hand is lost in a web of non sequiters.

I think our priests stand out among all clergy because of their dedication only to God. Man is not smart enough to serve 2 masters. Bless our priests dear Lord. Amen

Methinks our married Eastern brethren would take umbrage at that comment. I found Brother JR’s explanation on a religious writing a letter before he may take solemn vows quite interesting, especially the part concerning why he wishes to take them (i.e.; if he writes that he’s taking vows to save others, he’s rejected). Priesthood is different. Priesthood is concerned with the salvation of others through the sacramental ministry. Priests are called to help others save themselves. And isn’t that the best way for someone to save his own soul, by helping countless others save theirs?

Celibacy is a great virtue, and it’s sad to see it belittled and used as an excuse for criminal/immoral behavior. And I still stand by my belief that the Church does it a disservice by requiring priests to be celibate and holding over the heads of young men (“if you want us to even acknowledge your existance and the possibility a vocation could exist, you must be celibate”), instead of allowing them to embrace it freely and giving it more meaning.

My pastor his taking his four-week vacation now before Advent begins. The parish, a large one, is now in the hands of an 85 year old priest. I’m not chastising my pastor, he works his fingers to the bone and deserves it, in fact he needs it badly. It just frustrates me to the core that a parish with over 1,500 families is under an aging, retired priest for a month because the Church simply will not address the vocational problems gripping the West. If it has, the address is not taking root amongst the young men of America.

I understand any call about a vocation rests with the Church, as well it should. But you never see an umpire automatically call strike three on a batter as soon as he steps into the batter’s box, do you? Only at the end of the unsuccessful at-bat is the batter called out. I know this is a weak analogy, but the method of discerning vocations shouldn’t automatically exclude good married men who want to serve their fellow Christians with the sacraments just because they are married. It’s a stubborn clinging to a man-made rule, not one given by Christ.

 

[anode]

The point of this thread is the idea of making celibacy optional for the priesthood.

It has nothing to do with religious in vows.

It has nothing to do with the breaking of vows.

It has nothing to do with how religious are dealt with when they do break their vows.

This post of yours had nothing to do with the topic of this thread other than to push some agenda of yours.

We nit pick because we must. We nit pick because others try to muddy up the waters and steer discussions to topics they wish to discuss rather than discussing the topic as posted.

 Why bother to discuss ‘optional celibacy’ at all?  It’s not optional in the Western Rite.  Period.  Rome has decided that celibacy is mandatory for priests of the Western Rite, and this pontificate, at least, isn’t going to change its mind, no matter how bad the shortage of priests is in the US and Europe, or how many well-qualified men who want to become priests aren't going to.   That a married priesthood isn’t impossible is attested to by their ability to marry before ordination in the various Eastern rites, and the ability of married Anglican priests to convert and become Roman Catholic priests and stay married.  Many posters on this thread have complained bitterly about the priest shortage, which reflects how severe the shortage is in general,  and no matter how much the number of ordinations have increased--in a few areas--these are not likely to dent the shortage.

My posting of the latest (heterosexual) scandal was simply to inform readers of the latest, plastered on first page of the New York Times, so that they would have a response ready for associates who might point this out to them. I acknowledge JR’s explanations of why this couldn’t have been handled much earlier, but that difficulty only compounded the result–extreme scandal, which made not only the perps look bad, but the friars as well.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Why bother to discuss ‘optional celibacy’ at all? It’s not optional in the Western Rite. Period. Rome has decided that celibacy is mandatory for priests of the Western Rite, and this pontificate, at least, isn’t going to change its mind, no matter how bad the shortage of priests is in the US and Europe, or how many well-qualified men who want to become priests aren’t going to. That a married priesthood isn’t impossible is attested to by their ability to marry before ordination in the various Eastern rites, and the ability of married Anglican priests to convert and become Roman Catholic priests and stay married. Many posters on this thread have complained bitterly about the priest shortage, which reflects how severe the shortage is in general, and no matter how much the number of ordinations have increased–in a few areas–these are not likely to dent the shortage.

It is so option in the Latin Catholic Church. It is only a matter of discipline. The Church, though Rome, has granted dispensations to the law of celibacy in the Latin Catholic Church. So far this has just been for married ministers who have converted.

So it is optional, it is just that the option resides with the Church not with the individual.

Also, the fact that it is a matter of discipline, leaves it open for honest discussion.

My posting of the latest (heterosexual) scandal was simply to inform readers of the latest, plastered on first page of the New York Times, so that they would have a response ready for associates who might point this out to them. I acknowledge JR’s explanations of why this couldn’t have been handled much earlier, but that difficulty only compounded the result–extreme scandal, which made not only the perps look bad, but the friars as well.

Again, your posting has nothing to do with the topic of the thread except to derail it for an apparent agenda.

 

[JReducation]

Why bother to discuss ‘optional celibacy’ at all? It’s not optional in the Western Rite. Period. Rome has decided that celibacy is mandatory for priests of the Western Rite, and this pontificate, at least, isn’t going to change its mind, no matter how bad the shortage of priests is in the US and Europe, or how many well-qualified men who want to become priests aren’t going to. That a married priesthood isn’t impossible is attested to by their ability to marry before ordination in the various Eastern rites, and the ability of married Anglican priests to convert and become Roman Catholic priests and stay married. Many posters on this thread have complained bitterly about the priest shortage, which reflects how severe the shortage is in general, and no matter how much the number of ordinations have increased–in a few areas–these are not likely to dent the shortage.

My posting of the latest (heterosexual) scandal was simply to inform readers of the latest, plastered on first page of the New York Times, so that they would have a response ready for associates who might point this out to them. I acknowledge JR’s explanations of why this couldn’t have been handled much earlier, but that difficulty only compounded the result–extreme scandal, which made not only the perps look bad, but the friars as well.

As we have all agreed, celibacy is not an option in religious life. Marriage and religious life are mutually exclusive. Now that we have said this, the issue remains more in the minds of individuals than in the mind of the Church. In Cardinal Levada’s announcement regarding the incoming Anglican Catholics he made it quite clear that this is an exception, not the rule for the Roman Rite.

Regarding the case of the friar, the media is always going to drum up a case that they would not drum up for someone who is not a Catholic. That should not surprise any of us. If this were a lay person, the papers would have settled for whatever the state requires as far as child support and left it at that. We have to see things as they are. The press is out to give the Catholic Church a black eye at every turn, as if Catholics were the only sinners on the block. We don’t have to apologize for the sins of every Catholic. We have to be faithful and show others that there are faithful people in the Church. Of course we must be honest and admit that someone did something wrong. Never try to cover the sun with a rock. It won’t work. As long as we can prove that our religious or bishops acted in good faith and that they did moral thing, there is not much that we can say to the critics who will find something all the time. We’ve all been around this kind of person before.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[anode]

For current info on programs and a detailed breakdown on numbers of those entering what programs and where, go to:

cara.georgetown.edu/

…and click under:

*** Now Available: Catholic Ministry Formation Directory 2009
and the Statistical Overview for 2008-09***

 

[JReducation]

For current info on programs and a detailed breakdown on numbers of those entering what programs and where, go to:

cara.georgetown.edu/

…and click under:

*** Now Available: Catholic Ministry Formation Directory 2009
and the Statistical Overview for 2008-09***

These are all programs for seculars, not for religious. Just in case anyone is looking for formation program for religious.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[OLHope]

I posted this in vocations: but wow…, ask ye some, and though shalt receive:

I verified this on associated press…, just out within the past hour…, what do you think???

I happen to like the aol link even though it is disapproved by many on this site…,

news.aol.com/article/vatican-…-ease%2F728295

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories…MPLATE=DEFAULT

Admin please remove if there too many fallacies related with these articles.

 

[anode]

These are all programs for seculars, not for religious. Just in case anyone is looking for formation program for religious.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I believe that CARA includes this info also–CARA is a mine of info in general. I stumbled upon the link I enclosed by accident. But that link did include info on diocesan priest formation.

I don’t think that the press singles out the RCC. The press loves news, scandal, and anything that people want to read. I have read plenty of stuff about the Episcopal Church’s and the Anglican Communions difficulties with gay bishops and marriage, --women priests in years back–, the current ‘schism’–tho’ they don’t want to call it that–amongst Episcopalians in the US, the complete withdrawal of a few dioceses from the ECUSA, the wars over their churches and property, and most recently a scandal about an orthodox rabbi stealing a large sum of money from a school.

 

[AmyMart]

Hello all, I am new to the board and have come here to talk about my own experiences within the Catholic Church and to learn as much as I can about my Religion.

I have read as many posts in this thread as I could because I wanted to see if there was any mention to the married priests within the Catholic church. I didn’t see anything so I don’t know if I am going to shock you or not??

My first cousin is a Catholic Priest and is married with 6 children!
Now, I have had many friends who are Catholic that do not believe me when I say this but it is absolutely true! My cousin grew up Catholic but converted to the Episcopal Church and became a Reverand? (Not sure what you call it in the Episcopal Church) He wanted to have a family yet still preach which is why he converted. From what I understand, after Vatican ll, they allowed men who were married to become Priests if they converted into the religion. You could not take the vow as a Priest and then get married but you could be married and then convert into the Religion as a priest. At the time of his conversion he was 1 of 6 Priests in the world married with children… and he continued to have children. Usually people aks me (or I should say tell me) “well then he must be celebate” which is also not the case. I was told the reason for this is because of the decline of Priests.

I am going to be 100% honest and here is part of my struggle. I am one of the people who think it should be OK for a Priest to be married (not because of my cousin) What I really struggle with is the reason for the change. Why is it OK to make these changes only after you are so desperate for Priests? Why is it OK to make the change when it is convenient? There are other things that have changed within the religion, like the Act of Contrition (which blows my mind), communion in the hands, the pounding over the heart 3 times, wearing something on your head out of respect, and the fact that you can now be cremated. Did we have to change with the times?? Is it wrong for these changes to upset me but if they told me tomorrow that every Priest could be married I would embrace this change?

Amy

 

[JReducation]

Hello all, I am new to the board and have come here to talk about my own experiences within the Catholic Church and to learn as much as I can about my Religion.

I have read as many posts in this thread as I could because I wanted to see if there was any mention to the married priests within the Catholic church. I didn’t see anything so I don’t know if I am going to shock you or not??

Why is it OK to make these changes only after you are so desperate for Priests? Why is it OK to make the change when it is convenient?
Amy

Amy, your cousin came into the Catholic Church as a married clergyman from the Episcopal Church. The rule of celibacy before ordination can be dispensed by the local bishop or bishops’ conference, but only because he’s an exception. He was not a Catholic when he was ordained.

As we have stated before, let’s separate those priests who are religious from those who are secular. For the religious, there is no dispensation from the rule of celibacy. Religious vows trump marriage vows.

The discussion then centers around the discipline of ordaining only celibate men to the priesthood. Observe that it is a discipline. It is not a doctrine or a defined dogma. We have many married priests in the Eastern Churches; however, they are secular men, not religious. None of them are bishops.

All that being said, the point boils down to this. Ordination to the diaconate, priesthood or episcopal state is not a right. It is a divine privilege that is controlled by the Church. Therefore, the Church reserves the right to impose the disciplines that she feels will protect her priests and her people in given cultures and times.

Whether or not there is a shortage of priests is not a concern for the Church as much as whether or not there is a need to ordain married Catholics to the priesthood. The Church does not call men to Holy Orders out of convenience. Christ does not call men to Holy Orders out of convenience. It’s not a matter of saying that we have to get rid of this discipline that has worked for the Church for almost 1,000 years, because we are short of priests.

The Church has always been short of priests. But the answer is not to be found in ordaining married men to the priesthood. In fact, that probably would not increase the numbers of priests by very much. First, for a married man to be ordained, he must have the consent of his wife. He must have a true calling from Christ. He must be in full communion with the Church in all things… Let’s stop right at this point. This imposes on the wife a life of chastity that is going to be under a microscope. All of us are called to live chastity. Imagine yourself the wife of a priest or a candidate for the deaconate and everyone is watching to see how many children you have.

If a married man is ordained a deacon or a priest, he would be ordained for a particular diocese. His wife and family are now bound to live their lives in that diocese. Unlike religious, secular priests and deacons cannot pick up roots and move across country. They are bound to a bishop. This bond is not only for the ordained, but it applies to his wife as well and his children as long as they are minors.

When a married man is ordained, deacon or priest, he takes on an assignment given to him by the bishop. When the finances can’t pay for his kids’ college expenses, what will happen in that family? Will that turn the kids away from the Church? Will it make the wife bitter, because she wants to give her children what they want? How will that impact on the priest who is also a parent?

Can you legitimately send a priest who has a family with young children to a parish in a dangerous neighborhood? Is this fair to the children? Will his wife and family support this action? Everything sounds beautiful on paper. But wait until the tire hits the road.

What about marital conflicts? Does a priest get a divorce when a marriage goes belly up? In many dioceses wives must sign a pledge never to file for separation or divorce, unless their is danger of physical violence.

The complexities of modern life are such that ordaining married men can do great harm to the priesthood, it it’s not done with prudence. I believe these tentative steps with the converts are good and a safe way to test the waters before we go to far too fast. By the way, the rate of divorce and infidelity among Protestant clergy is high.

Finally, we do not actually have a shortage of priests. We have a shortage of parish priests. There are many priests, but more than half do not minister in parishes. As new religious communities come into existence and the old religious communities return to their original charism, we are going to see less parish priests. They are not called to minister in parishes Most are called to other ways of life and ministry. Many priests in religious communities, such as the ones that you see on EWTN never set foot in a parish except to preach a mission or help out on weekends.

People like Fathers Pacwa, Pavone, Corapi, Mullady, Benedict Groeschel, Angelo Apostoli and the Franciscans of the Eternal Word do not do parish work. Many other priests are following suit. There is a reason why these religious congregations and religious orders are not volunteering to pick up the slack in parishes. But that’s a topic for another thread.

I hope this helps shed some light on the issue. It’s not just a matter of stopping the shortage. It’s a matter of protecting the priesthood in the Western Church and being faithful to a discipline that has been part of our heritage for centuries. The other points such as wearing head coverings, how we baptize, how we say the confetior or the creed are not part of the picture here. Those points are part of another set of traditions that are unrelated to celibacy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[eucharisteo]

Can you legitimately send a priest who has a family with young children to a parish in a dangerous neighborhood? Is this fair to the children? Will his wife and family support this action? Everything sounds beautiful on paper. But wait until the tire hits the road.

I want to suggest that we revisit this thought. What religions allow their clergy to travel and with family? Protestants do this as a norm. Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, even my previous faith, the Church of Christ, send missionarians out to potentially dangerous places. This is and was part of the early church life. This is NOT a reason to refrain, but should be something they offer celibates as well as an option for those who may want. So this is NOT a reason. Yes, it should be discussed when or if the time comes.

Ironically today I opened a fortune cookie with my wife and mine said
“Your fondest dream will come true within this year.”

“Her’s said A Romantic mystery will soon add interest to your life.”

Her response to mine was to say “you’re going to become a priest?”
I said “I guess I’m going to have to beat somebody’s @%&$”

I actually have a fear that the Lord will take my family away from me, which would definitely lead me back to discerning the priesthood again. But I would never want this to happen. But the Lord did take most of my family many years ago, mom, dad, brother, stepfather, grandfather. I was suffering from pain they were dishing me and my wife. I prayed something I wished I had never prayed now. I prayed that he release me from them even if it meant taking them from this life because I just couldn’t handle what they were doing to me and my wife. I was torn deeply wounded by lots of manipalative actions that ultimately lead to us being written out of mom’s will and all the money went to my still living brother that aborted his children. Mom’s solution. I did not like the way she died with that on her sholdiers. So I submit her to God’s Divine Mercy all the time and pray for the repose of her soul hoping that if there is even a lick of a chance God will go back into time and change it just enough to save her. When she found out that I was seeking to become a priest again she blew up in my face and cursed the Blesses Mother.

So call it scrupulous or whatever, it’s not superstition. It’s a fact that for whatever reason God answers my prayers in profound ways. There’s a saying I hold to now…“be careful for what you pray for God just might give you what you ask for”. The moral of the story…"Be careful what you want or pray for because God might give us a Church full of priest families to deal with.

 

[JReducation]

I want to suggest that we revisit this thought. What religions allow their clergy to travel and with family? Protestants do this as a norm. Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, even my previous faith, the Church of Christ, send missionarians out to potentially dangerous places. This is and was part of the early church life. This is NOT a reason to refrain, but should be something they offer celibates as well as an option for those who may want. So this is NOT a reason. Yes, it should be discussed when or if the time comes.

Ironically today I opened a fortune cookie with my wife and mine said
“Your fondest dream will come true within this year.”

“Her’s said A Romantic mystery will soon add interest to your life.”

Her response to mine was to say “you’re going to become a priest?”
I said “I guess I’m going to have to beat somebody’s @%&$”

I actually have a fear that the Lord will take my family away from me, which would definitely lead me back to discerning the priesthood again. But I would never want this to happen. But the Lord did take most of my family many years ago, mom, dad, brother, stepfather, grandfather. I was suffering from pain they were dishing me and my wife. I prayed something I wished I had never prayed now. I prayed that he release me from them even if it meant taking them from this life because I just couldn’t handle what they were doing to me and my wife. I was torn deeply wounded by lots of manipalative actions that ultimately lead to us being written out of mom’s will and all the money went to my still living brother that aborted his children. Mom’s solution. I did not like the way she died with that on her sholdiers. So I submit her to God’s Divine Mercy all the time and pray for the repose of her soul hoping that if there is even a lick of a chance God will go back into time and change it just enough to save her. When she found out that I was seeking to become a priest again she blew up in my face and cursed the Blesses Mother.

So call it scrupulous or whatever, it’s not superstition. It’s a fact that for whatever reason God answers my prayers in profound ways. There’s a saying I hold to now…“be careful for what you pray for God just might give you what you ask for”. The moral of the story…"Be careful what you want or pray for because God might give us a Church full of priest families to deal with.

I’m so sorry what happened to your family. I too lost my wife, son and father in an auto accident. I raised my two surviving children and then joined the order. So I know your loss. But as I have always said, “God is good.”

Referring back to your first point, I know that many Protestant groups send ministers and their families to difficult situations. But the policy of the Church has always been that this is not justice to the children and families of its missionaries. Therefore, the Church does not ask its missionaries to make such sacrifices. She considers this an imposition on members of the family wo have not made a commitment to ministry. This has come up in the past with many religious founders, such as Elizabeth Ann Seton who had five children when she went to the Maryland missions. There was always the question of whether she had the right to put her children in this situation.

This question has haunted the Church over the centuries. Therefore, the practice has stopped. In current practice no one who has dependent parents or children may put them into such situations. The Church does not see this a virtuous. Family is first, mission is second.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[AmyMart]

Thank you for your reply! So, if I understand this correctly… Because my cousin was not a Catholic when he was ordained he is considered a Secular Priest not a Religious Priest. A Religious Priest would be one that would (or could) go on to be a Bishop and also took the vow of celibacy.

When you say “Observe that it is a discipline. It is not a doctrine or a defined dogma.” Does this mean that no where is this a written “rule” of the church?

When I spoke about the other topics I do know that they do not pertain to this thread but kind of lumped them in because I thought of them all as changes that have taken place.

I have to say there are some things that I did not think about such as who is sending my cousins 6 kids to college? I do know they all attend Catholic Schools and 3 went to Catholic College. Never thought about who paid for it! Because he is a Secular priest he had $, a home, a car. Honestly, I don’t know how that all worked out when he entered the church years ago. I guess the parish that he has been assigned to would have had to think that all through before ordaining him! Amy

 

[eucharisteo]

A discipline is a rule that can be changed. If the Holy See were to decide tomorrow that he wanted this rule lifted then it could be lifted. It’s sort of a man made tradition but really more of a prudent discipline designed for holy men to dedicate their entire lives to the church with roots in the historical Church of Christ from the beginning of the early church. Much of what we learned in our youth was not taught , vague or even wrong.

A doctrine on the other hand does not and can not change. Wearing a vail is more of a tradition, similar to celibate priesthood in a way. Receiving the Eucharist on the hand rather than the tongue is different. The Eastern rite catholics receive on the tongue in a particular way with a spoon. The Eucharist consists of both species, body and blood of Christ. In fact, infacts receive 3 sacraments, Baptism and Chrismation, Holy Communion. I’ve read that even in the Western Church [Latin rite] this used to be the “norm”.

We are group leaders for Why Catholic? and part of a beginning program for candidates interested in becoming clergy. I’d recommend that you seriously place your pride aside and find a solid RCIA program and attend it. It’s really fun and you’ll learn a lot. It’ll explain things that you’ve probably never heard or it will serve to remind you of things you’ve long forgotten or thought were no longer true. I grew up in a time too when things were significantly different. But what I discovered over the past 3 years is that the reasons they looked like they changed is because there were a lot of dissenters and those that hijacked or misinterpreted the “spirit of Vatican II” to means something other than what it really meant. I’m so glad our pastor in his wisdom found a way to coerce me into attending RCIA. He knew what he was doing for my own good. I thought I knew more than what I know and now I realize just how little I know.

I believe I read something about your uncle some time back many years ago. I’m not 100% sure but it sounds familiar to me. When did this happen?

 

[AmyMart]

See, this makes a lot more sense to me if you say celibacy is a man made tradition rather than doctrine. It is very confusing to understand which is tradition and doctrine because it seems a lot of the Catholic Religion has to do with tradition.

Without sounding totally ignorant, what is RCIA ? When I am seeing info about different groups suggested to us, and posters say “these are secular groups not religious”, what does that mean? Sorry for my confusion! I guess I understand why my cousin is a Secular Priest but how does that term pertain to members of the church? Aren’t we all religious?

Let’s see I am 40 and my cousin was ordained when I was little. Maybe 30-35 years ago? I remember him coming home for Thanksgiving and saying mass in my church when I was little. I also remember the other priests jokingly saying that their wives and children were all locked up hidden away in the rectory!

I guess what it comes down to is that I love my religion but do not understand a lot of it! I grew up Catholic, went to CCD & Church but now that my own child is in Catholic school I see that I got the watered down version! I would love to take a class and love that I can have many of my questions answered here! I guess I am now going to have to find another thread since my Celibacy question has been answered! With Sincere Thanks, Amy :angel1:

 

[JReducation]

RCIA is a religious education program for adults who are entering the Catholic faith or returning to it. It stands for Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults. In some parishes they have excellent programs, because they fill in the blanks for you on the doctrine, dogma, moral law, liturgy and traditions of the Church. In some parishes it is weak. A lot depends on the training of the instructors. But if you look around, you should be able to find one that has good instruction. Word of mouth is sometimes the best way to find out.

You asked about religious. In the Church there are two states in life. A person can be either a secular or a religious. We should all be religious people, as in people who are aspiring for holiness. But the canonical term religious applies to men and women who make vows of chastity, poverty, obedience and live in congregation or religious order. These can be friars, monks, nuns, sisters or religious brothers. For example, I’m a friar. I made vows and live with two other friars in a community house. We follow the Rule of St. Francis. We can never get married, because when we make our vow of chastity we give up marriage to become part of the Franciscan community. The community becomes our new family. Instead of a wife and children, we have each other. The same is the case for Benedictines, Carmelites, Dominicans and so forth. In many religious communities of men the members are allowed to be ordained priests. The religious superior decides who has a call to be a priest. In some communities, no one may become a priest. But they are in vows, living in community, under a rule of life. They are religious.

Christ calls some men to the diaconate, priesthood or even the Episcopal state (bishops). These men do not make vows. They do not live in a religious community. They are not bound to live by a rule of life. These men are clerics, but they are secular. A cleric is anyone who is ordained a deacon, priest or bishop. A secular is anyone who is not in vows of chastity, poverty and obedience and in a community or order.

These clerics (deacons, priests, and bishops) are part of a diocese, not part of a religious family. They make a promise of celibacy. Basically, it means that they will not get married. If they are married, they will not remarry when their wives die. They make a promise to obey the bishop. They do not make a vow to obey a rule such as do Carmelites, Benedictines or Franciscans. They can own property, make money, inherit money and have any material thing that they want. They do not have to ask for permission to get a new set of clothing, to go out, to go on vacation or even to skip prayer. They are their own bosses. They do not have to spend time with other religious, because they live in rectories or in their own homes. Rectories run like boarding houses. Every priest comes and goes on his own schedule. Each one has his own room, TV, telephone, and all that he can afford in his room. In some rectories, if the guys get along well, they will eat dinner together and spend time together. But it’s optional for them. Religious must pray together, eat together, recreate together, travel together, go on retreat together, have community meetings, pray together. This is part of their vow of chastity. This is their family.

Since secular clerics are not bound by a vow of chastity, we refer to their promise of celibacy as a discipline, not a matter of faith. But we must understand that disciplines come from tradition and tradition is very sacred to the Christian faith. Our bible comes to us from tradition. Before we had a bible, we had an oral tradition. By the time the Gospels and the letters were written, Christians knew these stories. The Church put into the bible all those writings that were consistent with the Christian tradition. The tradition decided what was going into the bible. We have other traditions that have been handed down to us from the early Church or later periods. They are part of our life as Catholics. For example, we have a tradition that the pope is always the Bishop of Rome. This is not a doctrine or a dogma. But it has been this way since the time of Peter. When he went to Rome as the first pope, he also become the bishop of the city. This is a tradition. Can it be changed? Yes. Should it be changed? No. Why not? Because every family needs to keep its history. Our history gives us a sense of who we are as a people and where we have come from.

Celibacy in the Western Church is a tradition that evolved into a discipline. It is not man made in the sense that someone decided to pull this out of their hat. It is human, because it comes from a practice that dates back to Christ, who was celibate. As the centuries passed more and more men in the Western Church embraced a celibate life. Eventually, it became the law of the Western Church. But it only became the law because it was already in progress for several hundred years. By the time that it became a law, there were more celibate secular priests than there were married priests.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF