Out of Curiosity

  • Thread starter Thread starter PiusOfTheCross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PiusOfTheCross

Guest
Just out of curiosity, do these factors bar a gent from becoming a priest? Just wondering because I know of priests who hold these views, and haven’t been laicized or anything crazy like that:

-Believing women should be ordained

-Refusing to believe in papal infallibility

-Refusing to believe in the Second Vatican Council

Many thanks
 
There are priests and even at least one bishop (now a bishop emeritus) who vocally campaign for the ordination of women. So as far as your first question goes, the answer is No, it doesn’t bar a “gent” from becoming a priest.
 
I’m not 100% sure about the first and the second one, though I hope that men with such ideas never get to be ordained.
For the third one, it depends, after all if a man seeks to become a “mainstream” priest he will have to fully accept what the Council said, even the traditional orders in full communion with Rome have to accept the Council here and there.
 
Last edited:
you are committing the sin of calumny by speaking about a person who cannot defend himself.
Your argument is also hearsay.
 
@Roseeurekacross

I know not who you directed that towards, but this is a hypothetical question, and the multiple mentions of priests with… ‘questionable’ ideas were quite ambiguous remarks with no specific person in mind, so I think it would be safe to propose that you are in fact the one who is guilty of calumny.
 
Last edited:
Like I said, if you had read my comments, the statements were ambiguous and no specific person was mentioned. If you are proposing that there is not a SINGLE priest on this planet that holds those ideas, you still wouldn’t be correct, because I didn’t mention a person to whom I would’ve been able to commit calumny towards. You should really read carefully before you try to identify the sins of a person based off of an ambiguous remark on the internet.
 
why add that you know priests with these views in a hypothetical then? That is misleading.

Its either hypothetical or you are talking about priests you know , and why they are priests or weren’t barred from priesthood
 
Last edited:
It’s not misleading, you just don’t understand the thread. The point of this thread is to see if a hypothetical young man would be barred from entering a seminary if he held one of the factors I described above.
 
i understand quite clearly, from what you said, maybe remove the

'you know priests ’ statement so we can view it as a hypothetical situation.

we get enough priest bashing threads as it is.

If you are asking if a hypothetical young man would be barred, ask your vocations director. Seminary candidates go through many tests and psychological evaluation. As they should.

I don’t think a man who believed the second and third points would even consider becoming a priest. but I have not asked.
A policeman upholds the law. He doesn’t get a choice about which laws, he upholds them all.
Same with a priest candidate I would imagine.
 
thanks, I am female too 🙂 i would imagine joining the sisterhood would have the same issues.
 
Roseeurekacross said:
you are committing the sin of calumny by speaking about a person who cannot defend himself.
Your argument is also hearsay.
Click to expand...
No he’s not. He hasn’t named any names and it also wouldn’t be calumny if he was discussing a priest who publicly holds those views. The faithful are entitled to have priests who teach the faith, are faithful to the teachings of the Church, and do not lead souls to hell.
 
Most priests who hold these views don’t go around publicizing them in seminary. They go under the radar and then get ordained and do their damage.

I would think a seminarian who expresses such views consistently throughout their training should be dismissed.
 
they are not there to defend themselves, and we are gossiping and using hearsay.

for example
hey did you hear father jo blo doesn’t believe in x y or z, or did A b or c.
Pope Francis says not to engage in gossip, its a sin and hurts people. The calumny is in making accusations of priests a person knows who do this or that.

This is CAF. we don’t priest bash.

As a hypothetical sure, but not as a gossip session.
 
I’m sorry, but if a priest says something publicly, then it’s fair game to discuss it publicly. Especially if that is something that could affect the faithful or something against actual Church teaching.

Comments that are public and on record are not hearsay.

And the OP has named no priests so it’s not slander or calumny.
 
we don’t know that though do we, we did not hear it. we only have hearsay.

one cannot convict on hearsay. the op says he knows OF priests who hold these views.

hearsay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top