I have read similar. The only deacon I know who remarried was already of retirement age. Not only were his children grown, most of his grandchildren were, as well. He tried to petition to remarry and was turned down. So he petitioned for laicization and was approved.Your comment raised something I thought I read, but for the life of me cannot recall where I read it. I read somewhere that a deacon whose wife dies and they have very young children can be allowed to remarry because it is thought that the well-being of the children would considered and their need for a mother. Does anyone else recall this? That being said I am not sure I’ve ever head of it and just wondered about it. I’m going to try to find that source.
Lorrie
Actually I believe you are wrong.It is a matter of canon law, not faith and morals. It is not the case that theologically a man within major Holy Orders cannot validly contract a marriage-it is a matter of Canon Law that he cannot validly contract a marriage. Otherwise, it would be impossible for the Church to permit priests to marry under any circumstances whatsoever. A dispensation can be granted (and such has in fact happened) by the Pope alone from the relevant canons and in such cases, a priest can validly contract marriage. When the Roman Catholic Church does grant dispensations from the canons and permits a priest to marry, the priest is removed from the clerical state, although sacramentally, he remains a priest. In such cases, the priest is not permitted to exercise the priestly ministry, except in the case of hearing the confession of a dying penitent.
I’m fairly certain I’m correct. I’ve read the applicable canons. A priest cannot validly contract marriage according to Canon Law-not by virtue of the ontological change that occurs when he is ordained. Similarly, a Catholic cannot validly contract marriage outside of the Church (without dispensation) by virtue of Canon Law, not because there intrinsic to marriage outside of the Church that would make the sacrament impossible. However, if you attempt marriage outside of the Church without permission, it is not merely illicit, it is invalid. With respect to her own members, the Church regulates marriage in ways that she does not for non-Catholics.Actually I believe you are wrong.
Canon Law can not invalidate the sacraments. To go against canon law only would mean that something is illicit.
It takes more than just discipline to make something invalid.
Actually, I also think the prohibition against allowing an ordained man to marry is theological. It’s not merely discipline.I’m fairly certain I’m correct. I’ve read the applicable canons. A priest cannot validly contract marriage according to Canon Law-not by virtue of the ontological change that occurs when he is ordained. Similarly, a Catholic cannot validly contract marriage outside of the Church (without dispensation) by virtue of Canon Law, not because there intrinsic to marriage outside of the Church that would make the sacrament impossible. However, if you attempt marriage outside of the Church without permission, it is not merely illicit, it is invalid. With respect to her own members, the Church regulates marriage in ways that she does not for non-Catholics.
In the case of priests, it is indeed possible for a Roman Catholic priest to marry validly, and licitly. For this to occur, he must first be laicized. Then, he must receive permission to marry (this permission must come from the Pope of Rome). He remains a priest sacramentally, according to Catholic theology. However, as a result of being removed from the clerical state, he may not exercise the office of priest, except that he may hear the confession of a dying penitent, or he may administer baptism in the case of a true emergency (which anyone can do anyway).
Being returned to the lay state, which is what laicized means, is a wholly different matter.I’m fairly certain I’m correct. I’ve read the applicable canons. A priest cannot validly contract marriage according to Canon Law-not by virtue of the ontological change that occurs when he is ordained. Similarly, a Catholic cannot validly contract marriage outside of the Church (without dispensation) by virtue of Canon Law, not because there intrinsic to marriage outside of the Church that would make the sacrament impossible. However, if you attempt marriage outside of the Church without permission, it is not merely illicit, it is invalid. With respect to her own members, the Church regulates marriage in ways that she does not for non-Catholics.
In the case of priests, it is indeed possible for a Roman Catholic priest to marry validly, and licitly. For this to occur, he must first be laicized. Then, he must receive permission to marry (this permission must come from the Pope of Rome). He remains a priest sacramentally, according to Catholic theology. However, as a result of being removed from the clerical state, he may not exercise the office of priest, except that he may hear the confession of a dying penitent, or he may administer baptism in the case of a true emergency (which anyone can do anyway).
One who is returned to the lay state remains a priest (indeed he remains a priest forever, without qualification), although not permitted to exercise priestly ministry. Read Canons 290-293. You will see that it is possible for a priest, after having been laicized, to be married licitly, with permission of the Pope. This shows that the prohibition of marriage for priests is not absolute and it is a matter of Canon Law. Of course, it is an exception that rarely occurs, but still it is a matter of discipline. Canon 290 makes it clear that the state of being a priest is eternal and can never be lost. Canon 291 shows that it is indeed possible for a priest to marry.Being returned to the lay state, which is what laicized means, is a wholly different matter.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree and move on.
It is a matter of church discipline (one of the strictest disciplines, which is very rarely dispensed, but a discipline nonetheless), not faith and morals. Canons 290-293 show both that a priest is a priest forever, without qualification, and that it is indeed possible for a married priest (having been returned to the lay state, but not having lost his priestly character), to marry. Therefore, there is nothing about the state of being ordained that renders marriage an ontological impossibility. If priests have the possibility of being married, but are not permitted to do so by Canon Law, except with the dispensation that is provided for by Canon Law, then the prohibition against the marriage of priests is a matter of Canon Law, not a matter of faith and morals. If it were a matter of faith and morals, then I don’t see how there would be exceptions.Actually, I also think the prohibition against allowing an ordained man to marry is theological. It’s not merely discipline.
The permission for a laicized ordained man to marry seems more an expression of oikonomia.
I’ve read this before. It doesn’t change my mind. If it were a matter of the Church’s teaching that it is not possible for priests to marry, there would be no exceptions. This is Church discipline (the strictest of disciplines, but still a discipline), not faith and morals. It is a matter of faith that baptism, confirmation, and ordination (to a particular office) cannot be repeated. Where are the exceptions for this rule of faith? What exceptions are there to the matter of faith only men can be ordained? Only a priest can confect the Eucharist or hear confessions? Only a bishop can ordain? Marriage is only between a man and a woman (both of whom must be free to marry)? Since when does the Pope, by exercise of oikonomia, permit abortion (or any other act of murder), sexual acts that are outside or marriage (or those within marriage that are not ordered towards procreation), etc.?RyanBlack,
Rather than focus on canon law, take a look into the catechism, first:
1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities. Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.
The canon allowing the Pope to give permission is oikonomia, similar to the Petrine privilege. Just because oikonomia isn’t a Latin concept doesn’t mean Latins don’t practice it.
Not everything needs to be devoid of exception to be a theological matter.I’ve read this before. It doesn’t change my mind. If it were a matter of the Church’s teaching that it is not possible for priests to marry, there would be no exceptions. This is Church discipline (the strictest of disciplines, but still a discipline), not faith and morals. It is a matter of faith that baptism, confirmation, and ordination (to a particular office) cannot be repeated. Where are the exceptions for this rule of faith? What exceptions are there to the matter of faith only men can be ordained? Only a priest can confect the Eucharist or hear confessions? Only a bishop can ordain? Marriage is only between a man and a woman (both of whom must be free to marry)? Since when does the Pope, by exercise of oikonomia, permit abortion (or any other act of murder), sexual acts that are outside or marriage (or those within marriage that are not ordered towards procreation), etc.?
Of course something need not be devoid of exception to be a theological matter, but not everything that is of theological significance is a matter of faith that cannot be changed, and for which there are no exceptions, as opposed to matter of Church discipline (which are often filled with theological reasoning and significance), but which can be changed, and for which there can be exceptions. It is a matter of the Church’s faith that only a man can be ordained (no exceptions, cannot be changed). It is a matter of the Church’s faith that only a bishop can ordain (no exceptions, cannot be changed). I can provide numerous additional examples.Not everything needs to be devoid of exception to be a theological matter.
Something else to consider is that Canon law is at the service of the Gospel, not its master. The Catechism, however, is an expression of the Gospel itself. Therefore, if there is some discrepancy between them, theological weight lies with the catechism.
I suspect that the situation in question is exceptional and that one will not likely be given access to the particular details. Probably better to let it go.A second sub question is then: if one married man can be dispensed from celibacy, why not others? What was so unique about the one man who was dispensed dispensed from other married men who would also like to be ordained priests rather than deacons?
I think that is a good question.A second sub question is then: if one married man can be dispensed from celibacy, why not others? What was so unique about the one man who was dispensed dispensed from other married men who would also like to be ordained priests rather than deacons?
Why one man and not another? It is a matter of Justice. It seems that sometimes people confuse Justice with Fairness. Something does not have to be fair for it to be just. It takes into account the man as an individual. A man from another faith tradition whose tradition has married ministers and is called to ministry can not be expected to follow Catholic Church discipline in following that ministry. The Church recognizes that this man may truly be called through his faith tradition to ministry which did not exclude marriage. As the ordination of marred men to the priesthood is purely a matter of discipline it can be dispensed from.The sub question was who has the authority to dispense a married man? Some have said the Pope others the Bishop. What does Cannon Law have to say about this? The Pope is Bishop of Rome, not the Bishop of any other diocese. Isn’t the Bishop in full control of whatever happens in his diocese?
Sorry about that.This thread is wandering off-topic. The original question was never about whether a Catholic priest can or cannot marry. The original question was on the Catholic ordination to the priesthood of married men.
Canon 1042 is the law that impedes a married man from receiving Orders higher then the diaconate. Canon 1047, paragraph 2 reserved dispensation to the “Apostolic See” (i.e. See of Peter/Pope)The sub question was who has the authority to dispense a married man? Some have said the Pope others the Bishop. What does Cannon Law have to say about this? The Pope is Bishop of Rome, not the Bishop of any other diocese. Isn’t the Bishop in full control of whatever happens in his diocese?
The Personal Ordinariates established for Anglican Use are subject to the same law. They may be merely “fast-tracked” however.Caveat – the question specifically excludes any discussion of the Anglican Ordinariate or Eastern Catholicism.
There are only a few specific scenarios where dispensation is given:A second sub question is then: if one married man can be dispensed from celibacy, why not others? What was so unique about the one man who was dispensed dispensed from other married men who would also like to be ordained priests rather than deacons?
In your first case a dispensation is not necessary as the man is no longer married.There are only a few specific scenarios where dispensation is given:
- The man is widowed and his children (if any) are fully grown and on their own.
- The man previously served as a married priest/minister in a Protestant tradition and subsequently was received into the Catholic Church. Afterward, he discerned that his calling was indeed a priestly one. Since he can’t reorder his life to convert as a single to properly discern, he is given a second chance.
Well the discernment process is a private process. I do not think you are really asking to know what is going on in these private discernment process though.Thank you Br David and John for your most helpful and thoughtful replies.It does seem to be a case-by-case situation that requires formal Papal sanction.
The reason why I asked the original question, on page 1, was that I had watched the Journey Home program and heard this priest’s conversions story. Marcus Grodi has had many former Protestant clergy on his program, including Marcus himsell, who have not received orders. Married men with children who have struggled to find a job and a way to support themselves after converting to Catholicism. Never once was it mentioned that there might be a possibility for them to be ordained to the priesthood or if they had even thought about it. They did talk about how difficult it was for them to become “laity” and sit in the pews after having been a successful pastor.
This conversion story, therefore, stuck out as a significantly different ending and one I had never thought possible. It makes me wonder why none of the other protestant ministers who converted to Catholicism ever approached their bishops for a dispensation. Or if they did, why were they refused while this other man was not?