Optional Celibacy in the Priesthood

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I believe that when a priest is laicized he is enjoined from acting in any ministry within a parish (cantor, lector, EMHC, and such) as well as forbidden from being on any of the councils (parish, financial, and such). This is due to ojtm said, it is to avoid any blurring of the lines.

A laicized priest is returned to the lay state and is suspended from any priestly activity. He may only baptize or hear a confession in the case of emergency (usually spelled out as near death). He can not anoint as he should not have the Holy Oil in his possession, he can not give communion as, again, he should not have the Eucharist in his possession.

For all intents and purposes he is a lay man though once a priest, always a priest, he not allowed to act as such except for the very limited cases I listed above.

No laicized priest could be given faculties by a bishop to act as a permanent deacon as he has been returned to the lay state (laicized) by Rome and only Rome can change this.

 

[Young_Thinker]

I believe that when a priest is laicized he is enjoined from acting in any ministry within a parish (cantor, lector, EMHC, and such) as well as forbidden from being on any of the councils (parish, financial, and such). This is due to ojtm said, it is to avoid any blurring of the lines.

A laicized priest is returned to the lay state and is suspended from any priestly activity. He may only baptize or hear a confession in the case of emergency (usually spelled out as near death). He can not anoint as he should not have the Holy Oil in his possession, he can not give communion as, again, he should not have the Eucharist in his possession.

For all intents and purposes he is a lay man though once a priest, always a priest, he not allowed to act as such except for the very limited cases I listed above.

No laicized priest could be given faculties by a bishop to act as a permanent deacon as he has been returned to the lay state (laicized) by Rome and only Rome can change this.

Thank you, Brother. After asking this question, I read that a laicized priest is not allowed to even do something like teaching at a Catholic university. While I support clerical celibacy, on the opposite side of this issue, I do not understand why more Protestant clergymen who convert to Catholicism do not take advantage of the pastoral provision so as to be ordained to the priesthood. If they felt that they had a calling to the ministry before they became Catholics, why would they feel differently after coming to the True Church? If they do not feel comfortable being priests(or if their bishops do not allow it), they could at least become deacons if God has been really calling them.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thank you, Brother. After asking this question, I read that a laicized priest is not allowed to even do something like teaching at a Catholic university. While I support clerical celibacy, on the opposite side of this issue, I do not understand why more Protestant clergymen who convert to Catholicism do not take advantage of the pastoral provision so as to be ordained to the priesthood. If they felt that they had a calling to the ministry before they became Catholics, why would they feel differently after coming to the True Church? If they do not feel comfortable being priests(or if their bishops do not allow it), they could at least become deacons if God has been really calling them.

Maybe they do and they are turned down by either their bishop or Rome? This is not a statistic you will see advertised. It is between the man, the bishop/Rome.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Maybe they do and they are turned down by either their bishop or Rome? This is not a statistic you will see advertised. It is between the man, the bishop/Rome.

That is certainly a possibility.

 

[otjm]

What I am saying is that a vow/promise (as secular clergy do not make vows) of celibacy/chastity is not about the sex it is about the celibacy/chastity. As I realize some of you on the thread are going - we know -you will have to scan back to see what comment prompted me to say that.

As far as the obedience factor - I am not speaking of the obedience to the vow/promise - I am speaking of the obedience to the Magisterium that has placed the vow/promise in effect. Remember one of the Graces of our Confirmation was to be better bound to the Church and one of our promises from Confirmation as I understood them was to defend the same Church.

Thank you for responding.

Chastity is required of all - whether married or single, and if single, whether one has made a promise of celibacy (diocesan priests) or a vow (religious). No one here is talking about sex. We are talking about the fact that the Roman Church ordains married men to the priesthood - but only if they were Protestant ministers before converting. and the question generally is, should the Roman Church expand beyond converts in ordaining married men.\

One can defend the Church and still question whether or not the rule/discipline of celibacy should be relaxed further. Being bound to the Church does not mean that one cannot disciplinary rules.

As to obedience to the Magisterium, that would seem to be an issue only with a Roman Catholic married man, who either changed rites to an Eastern Catholic rite without being honest as to his intentions, or became Orthodox. Obedience to the rule of celibacy is a given for a married Catholic man; he really has no other alternatives by which to be disobedient. Obedience does not mean non-questioning, however.

 

[joandarc2008]

Thank you for responding.

Chastity is required of all - whether married or single, and if single, whether one has made a promise of celibacy (diocesan priests) or a vow (religious). No one here is talking about sex. We are talking about the fact that the Roman Church ordains married men to the priesthood - but only if they were Protestant ministers before converting. and the question generally is, should the Roman Church expand beyond converts in ordaining married men.\

One can defend the Church and still question whether or not the rule/discipline of celibacy should be relaxed further. Being bound to the Church does not mean that one cannot disciplinary rules.

As to obedience to the Magisterium, that would seem to be an issue only with a Roman Catholic married man, who either changed rites to an Eastern Catholic rite without being honest as to his intentions, or became Orthodox. Obedience to the rule of celibacy is a given for a married Catholic man; he really has no other alternatives by which to be disobedient. Obedience does not mean non-questioning, however.

Agreed that we can question, and look into things- but that is not what started this thread - what started this thread was an open petition to have others sign which is an open act of disobedience to the Magisterium.

 

[otjm]

Agreed that we can question, and look into things- but that is not what started this thread - what started this thread was an open petition to have others sign which is an open act of disobedience to the Magisterium.

without getting into the issue of whether the EF was banned, prohibited, repressed, suppressed or otherwise forbidden, many people petitioned Rome to reinstate it. I would hardly call them disobedient; However, by your definition, they would be. I do not see that anyone who asked Rome to reconsider the disciplinary rule would be disobedient. If they sent a note to Rome saying they would not abide by the rule and would start ordaining married men, that would be disobedient; but that letter could only come with any sense of authority behind it from one or more bishops; and without authority from someone not a bishop and claiming the power to ordain. And in either case, that is not what was being proposed.

I know of nothing in either Canon law or moral law which says that such a petition would be an act of disobedience; it is a request. Requests are not per se disobedient, unless you have something to the contrary with which I am not familiar.

Note: I am not suggesting anyone sign such a petition (ink is worth too much to be spent on such folly); simply discussing the issue of whether or not such an act would be disobedient.

 

[joandarc2008]

without getting into the issue of whether the EF was banned, prohibited, repressed, suppressed or otherwise forbidden, many people petitioned Rome to reinstate it. I would hardly call them disobedient; However, by your definition, they would be. I do not see that anyone who asked Rome to reconsider the disciplinary rule would be disobedient. If they sent a note to Rome saying they would not abide by the rule and would start ordaining married men, that would be disobedient; but that letter could only come with any sense of authority behind it from one or more bishops; and without authority from someone not a bishop and claiming the power to ordain. And in either case, that is not what was being proposed.

I know of nothing in either Canon law or moral law which says that such a petition would be an act of disobedience; it is a request. Requests are not per se disobedient, unless you have something to the contrary with which I am not familiar.

Note: I am not suggesting anyone sign such a petition (ink is worth too much to be spent on such folly); simply discussing the issue of whether or not such an act would be disobedient.

Personally what it comes down to is the belief that the Magisterium is a culmination of the Apostolic Succession created by Christ Himself handing Peter the Keys to the Kingdom. Why on Earth would such a Divine Manifestation need the laity to petition it’s will on to the Will of God which is demonstrated in the decisions and writings of the Magisterium? When we stop believing these things what else do we not need to listen to the Magisterium on: ABC vs NFP, life, economics, social policy, female ordination, just war doctrine, etc.?

 

[otjm]

Personally what it comes down to is the belief that the Magisterium is a culmination of the Apostolic Succession created by Christ Himself handing Peter the Keys to the Kingdom. Why on Earth would such a Divine Manifestation need the laity to petition it’s will on to the Will of God which is demonstrated in the decisions and writings of the Magisterium? When we stop believing these things what else do we not need to listen to the Magisterium on: ABC vs NFP, life, economics, social policy, female ordination, just war doctrine, etc.?

Well, let’s go back to my comment: although you did not respond to my analogy, I still think that your comment that sending a petition to Rome concerning the discipline of celibacy would require a like application to those who petitioned Rome for a greater use of the EF; that is, that both would be considered disobedient.

Your comment about the Magisterium is very close to a holding that anything which they teach or do is infallible. Not even the Church teaches that.

The examples you use - means of regulating births (morality), life issues (morality), economics (morality and prudential judgment), social policy (some morality and some simply prudential judgment), female ordination (doctrinal), just war (morality) are all of a different order than the issue of a disciplinary rule. The rule may have theological support, but that does not raise it to a doctrinal issue; celibacy in the priesthood is not in any way intrinsic to the sacrament, which should be clear with 2000 years of married clergy in the Church.

As to the will of God, one needs simply to read the history of the Church to find that the Church has made many decisions over the centuries which were changed, and then changed again. While it may be the will of God that the church has a rule of celibacy for clergy in the Roman Church (which is manifestly not an absolute), it is just as conceivable that the will of God may in the future be that married Catholic men may be ordained in the Roman Church. Or it may not be, in the future. To posit however, that any change in rules (as opposed to morality and doctrine) must originate at the top and come down from the top is to ignore history and the saints of the Church, and I would point specifically to St. Theresa of Avila as a starting point for the discussion. it also presumes that when any rule has been changed, it has been changed because the issue arose first with the Pope, again something that ignores how rules are made. The Pope is the final arbiter of the change, but the change will be worked out below that level. and it would be presumptious to assume that only clergy would or could have (name removed by moderator)ut on those changes.