Pandoras Box

[john78]

I had begun a thread last night after some thoughts I had in regards to women not being able to serve as a priest, or priests not being able to be married. and deleted it after thinking about Pandoras Box. anyhow …

I thought about how our nation is not lead by one man as president, but many, his wife plays a major role in his decisions, and his vice president and his administration, along with other factors , and it would be the same just reversed gender if a woman became president an was married.

Deacons are an excellent example of how one day a Priest could be married and serve a parish and of course there is more in depth pros an cons to be looked at for a man who would be married and needing to serve now his personal family and a parish family.

and I began to ask if it would be Heracy if a future Pope changed Canon Law to allow for a priest to be married or a woman to serve as priest, and if the Pope would in turn be a heratic.

I mean 300 years to form our bible from i saw in one thread, I wonder the problems faced during that period, having to discern an pray and judge if what is being formed is correct, what a challenge that must have been.

Then I started thinking about pandoras box, how if rules were changed, it then leads to other things being questioned, how long before someone asks well why cant homosexuals be priests, being homosexual is just a sin, and as humans we all sin, so why treat good, honest homosexuals who are not living a terrible life and want to serve God as not being worthy ? and analogies can go on an on i suppose, hence " Pandoras Box " .

I think our own Nations Constitution and Bill of Rights is a good example of why rules should not be changed…

I doubt the Founding Fathers intended for these laws to be twisted to such an extent that fools in power have the ability to say yes the Freedom of Speech specifically protects the right to produce and sell pornography, or the Right to Bare Arms is a mistake and there fore we need to create stronger anti gun laws because we cant control criminals and those who are mentally ill from obtaining them…

Hence why I figure in my own simple way that even though we know there would probably be some major benefits to allowing priests to live a married life, and that the world wouldnt come to an end if women became priests, in turn then it opens this box to questioning everything else in Canon Law, and there by in turn I am left with the conclusion to stop questioning such matters.

It isnt that I have some major struggle with accepting such things, I accepted such things a long time ago , even not fully understanding them and maybe do not even actually fully understand things now , though I would like to think I am coming close.

anyhow I felt the need to get this out here, as i wonder if others ever felt the same thoughts yet might be a bit nervous to speak up.

 

[michael_k]

This problem is resolved by the infallibility of the ordinary and universal Magisterium on the most important matters of faith and morals. For instance, regarding female priests:

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: Affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

(vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html)

 

[john78]

lol sheesh Michael ya know there are 154 view and you are the only one to comment…

funny to me, it makes me wonder what everyone else thinks.

and I know there are rules.

that wasn’t my question of where are the rules, my question was in part, would it be heracy if a future Pontiff came up with a new Council and and what not and said we are changing the rules, we have prayed over it in great detail.

Everyone knows the rules.

and thus why i ended up thinking about the proverbial Pandoras Box.

I mean really we are supposed to believe God loves humanity so much that He gave us His only Son, but sorry women are not holy enough to be a Priest, I mean if women are just not Holy enough the why did God even bother with the Blessed Mary ?

God could have came to Earth on his own, no one would have been the wiser.

My point is humans made these rules , and we all know that… I mean are we just sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring real probablitities ?

Women had hardly any rights in the time of Christ and before if any , and to this very day parts of the Middle East still treat women as second class humans.

So I wouldnt suggest that the Apostles were sexisist but perhaps realized women would have a very hard time in that period of doing what they were doing as men, when the world at that period in time where looking for any excuse to kill them just for continuing to preach the Word of Christ…

And perhaps they saw they couldnt possibly serve two missions one with a family of their own and one serving Christ…

Then take this into consideration why are females now allowed to be alter servers ?

Again I don’t think Catholics should be scolded for questioning such things. I mean unless someone can quote a passage or something from the Vatican that says so n so had a vision of this day and year where Our Lord specifically said this and this in regards to priests being married or only can be men…

I also have Zero problems with accepting Canon Law, but let us not pretend that a future Pontiff has no authoraty to come up with a council, in faith and prayer/ discernment and come to the conclusion that it is okay to make a change…

But again i fall back to the Pandoras Box.

There are pros and cons to every rule and change, not all the time but some times if not most there are pros and cons.

So then one might ask, why am i bringing this up here, and I do have an answer for that,

If I end up finally being called into a vocation, I want to get these types of questions out now, here… where there is freedom to ask such things, because once I cross into a vocation it requires the utmost in committment and discipline, and there really is no room to question such things. At least not with out some kind of reprocussion that might not reflect on me in a positive way. The same in the military, once you become a solider you do not have the luxury of questioning every order you are given. You do have the option though to go against it and in turn face the concequences, like anything else in life.

And i have no qualms about my denying myself for Christ, to follow Him … I just want to get everything out now while i still can.

Can anyone imagine if we didnt question our politicians, if we just took for granted everything the wrote into law and said in public … ???

So thanks for the response, lol even if it was to a link of a rule that i didnt actually know of but figured did actually exisist already.

And hey if anyone thinks I am full of it, feel free to say so, you wont hurt my feelings any.

 

[OraLabora]

The interdiction against priests marrying is a matter of disciine, not of dogma. There are licitly married Catholic priests in both the Roman Church and the other 22 sui juris Churches in communion with Rome. Those in the Roman Church are usually converts. The discipline could be changed at any time.

Women priests is another matter. The Church claims no authority to ordain women.

 

[maltmom]

As a Protestant I walked out of a couple of services b/c a visiting female pastor was going to lead the service and preach that day. If the Catholic church started to ordain women I would find another parish to attend Mass.

I’m not sure how I’d feel about my Priest being married. I guess I’d have to cross that bridge it I ever come to it. It is my understanding that a married man can be ordained as a Deacon, but if she wife passes away he is not allowed to remarry. I may be wrong here.

 

[xzereus]

It is my understanding that a married man can be ordained as a Deacon, but if she wife passes away he is not allowed to remarry.

Right, by my understanding. It’s the same way with priests. Married men can become priests, but priests can’t get married after becoming priests. And, going back to the OP, there are plenty of married priests in the Catholic Church, so I highly doubt a Pope would be considered a heretic for saying it’s okay for priests to marry. As already pointed out, it’s a discipline, not a dogma. Women can’t be priests, so I think it would be fair to say that the Pope was a heretic if he tried to ordain women.

 

[tabycat]

. It is my understanding that a married man can be ordained as a Deacon, but if she wife passes away he is not allowed to remarry. I may be wrong here.

Married can become a Deacon in both the Western and Eastern Catholic Church. In the Western Church only those who are convertes can become ordained Priests onlly if they had been clergy. By the way, in both Monks have to be unmarried (either never married or wife has died).