L
Lonevoice
Guest
As some others have said, Priests should be celibate, except for converts from other rites.
- Status
J
justme
Guest
It is so disheartening to see so much ignorance on Church Teachings. Part of what makes this worse is the fact that there is so much bias and people actually put their opinion over what the Church says.
Look to the Catechism. Try to learn and understand what the Church actually Teaches.
1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."70 Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord,"71 they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church’s minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.72
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.73 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.
But then I bet you think Rome is wrong on this.
This next one is very important (bold underlined emphasis added)
1599 In the Latin Church the sacrament of Holy Orders for the presbyterate is normally conferred only on candidates who are ready to embrace celibacy freely and who publicly manifest their intention of staying celibate for the love of God’s kingdom and the service of men.
Notice the is normally conferred, that means there are times in the Latin Church that Holy Orders for the presbyterate are conferred on candidates who are married.
Time to wake up people. Read your Catechisms.
Look to the Catechism. Try to learn and understand what the Church actually Teaches.
1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."70 Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord,"71 they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church’s minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.72
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.73 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.
But then I bet you think Rome is wrong on this.
This next one is very important (bold underlined emphasis added)
1599 In the Latin Church the sacrament of Holy Orders for the presbyterate is normally conferred only on candidates who are ready to embrace celibacy freely and who publicly manifest their intention of staying celibate for the love of God’s kingdom and the service of men.
Notice the is normally conferred, that means there are times in the Latin Church that Holy Orders for the presbyterate are conferred on candidates who are married.
Time to wake up people. Read your Catechisms.
S
Symeon_Peter
Guest
Agreeable.
However disagreement in mind and practice of that disagreement are two greatly seperate things.
like you said, you disagree with the speed limit on that street, but you still follow the law in that you dont speed, your second example is grievously flawed, in that the Byzantines not only disagree with celibacy, they actively practice against this teaching
regarding the authority of the pope.
All ALL that emanates from him IS dogma. If you do not believe in his apastolic authority, youre not catholic. for it is written “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and will despise the other.” and this is precisely what you are trying to perform when you become wholly devoted to the will of the church yet seek female companionship.
S
Symeon_Peter
Guest
sorry, skipped who the quote was from, im kinda new to the whole forum scene,
I
InnocentIII
Guest
As a supporter of priestly celibacy I find myself in agreement with ByzCatholic on this.
Celibacy is a discipline not a dogma. Because of the different historical development of the Eastern and Western churches they developed different approaches to this issue although both acknowledge its desirability.
The Eastern church draws a distinction between the parochial priesthood and the monastic priesthood, the first of whom may be married at the time of ordination but who are then barred from advancement to the episcopate.
The Western church which was monastically driven for the period of missionary conversion of the Barbarians adopted celibacy as a requirement of all priests. Nonetheless, the Church has seen fit to ordain married men from time to time where a genuine calling to the priesthood exists.
I think the important thing here is to maintain the respective disciplines of the Churches unless there is exceptional reasons to alter them. My concern with this debate is over the agenda that is being pushed i.e we don’t have enough priests so we need to allow married priests. This implies the right of priests to get married - which is contrary to both Western and Eastern traditions that an already ordained priest may not get married.
Married priests will not solve the “vocations crisis” but it will, if widely implemented, break down further the distinction between the sacramental priesthood and the laity and it is this that I think is behind the push to change the discipline of the Latin Church. It is part of the protestantisation of Western Catholicism. If the Church already can and does ordain married men when a true calling can be discerned why is this an issue at all - because it is part of a liberal agenda to minimise the role of the priest.
Both East and West must hold fast to the disciplines of the Church as theyhave developed and not allow the world to tell us how to run our business.
Celibacy is a discipline not a dogma. Because of the different historical development of the Eastern and Western churches they developed different approaches to this issue although both acknowledge its desirability.
The Eastern church draws a distinction between the parochial priesthood and the monastic priesthood, the first of whom may be married at the time of ordination but who are then barred from advancement to the episcopate.
The Western church which was monastically driven for the period of missionary conversion of the Barbarians adopted celibacy as a requirement of all priests. Nonetheless, the Church has seen fit to ordain married men from time to time where a genuine calling to the priesthood exists.
I think the important thing here is to maintain the respective disciplines of the Churches unless there is exceptional reasons to alter them. My concern with this debate is over the agenda that is being pushed i.e we don’t have enough priests so we need to allow married priests. This implies the right of priests to get married - which is contrary to both Western and Eastern traditions that an already ordained priest may not get married.
Married priests will not solve the “vocations crisis” but it will, if widely implemented, break down further the distinction between the sacramental priesthood and the laity and it is this that I think is behind the push to change the discipline of the Latin Church. It is part of the protestantisation of Western Catholicism. If the Church already can and does ordain married men when a true calling can be discerned why is this an issue at all - because it is part of a liberal agenda to minimise the role of the priest.
Both East and West must hold fast to the disciplines of the Church as theyhave developed and not allow the world to tell us how to run our business.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
You show a grave misunderstanding of how the Church works and what the Church actually Teaches.
Go back to the reply by justme and read what the Catechism actually says.
You must also understand that the pope has three offices. You must look at who his audience is when he speaks.
- The pope is bishop of Rome. He does not allow female altar servers or communion in hand in his Diocese. Now using your logic, the whole Church in America is in error.
- The pope is partriarch of the West, the head of the Latin Catholic Church. So when the pope spoke out to keep priestly celibacy, the was doing so in this capacity.
- The pope is the supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church, you would be surprised but he does not wear this hat all that often.
Specifically these canons.
Can. 192
5. The eparchial bishop is to see that the families of his clerics, if they are married, be provided with adequate support, appropriate protection and social security in addition to health insurance according to the norm of law.
Can. 285
2. If the presbyter is married, good morals are required in his wife and his children who live with him.
Can. 352
- The pastoral formation is to be adapted according to the conditions of place and time and to the aptitude of the students whether celibate or married and to the needs of the ministry for which they are preparing themselves.
Clerical celibacy chosen for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and suited to the priesthood is to be greatly esteemed everywhere, as supported by the tradition of the whole Church; likewise, the hallowed practice of married clerics in the primitive Church and in the tradition of the Eastern Churches throughout the ages is to be held in honor.
Can. 374
Clerics, celibate or married, are to excel in the virtue of chastity; it is for the particular law to establish suitable means for pursuing this end.
I think that is enough, it is about half of the Canons that deal with a married clergy.
So, again, using your logic, the pope, who promulgated these Canons, is going against Church Teachings.
I think it is important for you to see that a Church Discipline can be different in different sui iuris Churches may be different.
You would probably be scandalized to learn that we use levaned bread for our Eucharist.
P
palmas85
Guest
YES, Priests, Religious Brothers and Sisters should be celebate.
Sex is not everything in life, and the religious for generations have been celibate. I believe the tendency to believe that sex is absolutely necessary to emotional health is merely a way to believe that we should be able to do exactly what we want when we want.
Sex is not everything in life, and the religious for generations have been celibate. I believe the tendency to believe that sex is absolutely necessary to emotional health is merely a way to believe that we should be able to do exactly what we want when we want.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I thank you for this reply and your support in this matter.
I agree with you 100% here. While I support the married priesthood within the Byzantine Churches, I do not think the Latin Church should change for exactly the same reasons you list.
O
otm
Guest
O
otm
Guest
You are confusing chastity, to which all are called, with celibacy, to which only some are called.
Husbands and wives are called to be chaste, but not (obviously) celibate.
O
otm
Guest
Do you work a forty hour work week?
They would have the same demands for time and attention that just about any other professional (i.e. doctor, lawyer, CPA, business owner, or mid-level managment) would have. They can seem to manage the time and find bablance; so to can a priest.
This also ignores the many married priests we have in the Catholic Church - especially through the Eastern rites. They have been doing it for 20 centuries; I suspect the priests in the Roman rite could do it also.
O
otm
Guest
No doubt it is not easy; but then, it is not easy for those who have a much longer than 40 hour work week. Last time I checked, that included farmers, doctors, lawyers and a host of others.
Further, it ignores all the married priests in the Eastern rites as well as those in the Roman rite who are married.
O
otm
Guest
It would? Pray tell, how would the Sacrament of Holy Orders have to be changed, given that it is valid now for the Eastern ristes and the Roman rite for the married priests we have now?Then the church would have to change the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the Sacrament of Matrimony.
Furthermore, all preists should be chaste because, 1. priests aren’t rich and can’t provide for their families as well as others, also, if a prest is married, he will be worried about his family and can’t worry about the congregation, or vis a vis.:yup: :tsktsk:
Chastity is not the issue. All are called to chastity - married people, single people, professed religious - but only some are called to celibacy.
O
otm
Guest
Then, do tell, what do you say to all the married priests in the Cathiolic Church?Priests should be celibate. They are in a sense married to the Church. No one said that their lives would be easy and without sacrifice.
We need to keep praying for more vocations to the Priesthood and Religious life.
O
otm
Guest
It is not a teaching of the Church, as in a doctrine; it is a discipline, as in a rule; and rules such as this can be changed.
The Byzantine rite does not actively practice againstany teaching of the Church. It simply has a different rule. Further, the fact that they have married priests in no way shows that they disagree with celibacy; many of them are celibate. Many are married.
The call to a cleibate life is a charism, a gift, and it is not given to all. The call to the priesthood is a charism, a gift, and not all are called to the priesthood.
And not all celibates are priests; some are professed religious (i.e. monks; we know them as brothers), and some simply live a celibate life without profession; they are called laity.
Symeon Peter:
You have an extremely overblown understanding of what “eminates” from the Pope. The Church does not teach what you propound.
O
otm
Guest
I know too many people who are not liberal who feel that we should be able to ordain married men. Unless you are labeling anyone liberal who has this opinion, at which point we have a major disagreement as to what liberal means.
I agree that it is not going to solve any vocation crisi (if such indeed exists on a world-wide basis) but to say that it is the protestnisation of the Church would appear to border on the ludicrous, given that the Church has had married priests for 2000 years. The Protestants have only been around for about 500 years of that time.
And as to causing a minimization of the role of a priest, that is a slap in the face to the numerous married priests we have, as well as to the Eastern rites, and I fail to see how his status at home has anything what so ever to do with his status on the altar, or at the sick bed, or in the confessional.
O
otm
Guest
Some religious have been celibate. Some have been married.
Sex has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is about who is called to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. And the fact that someone is married does not mean that he does not have a call to the priesthood.
O
otm
Guest
You probably should have added infant Communion…
I
InnocentIII
Guest
The Church already can ordain married men, and does where a true calling has been discerned - so why all the push to ** change the discipline**
There is a real distinction between the Eastern approach to married clergy and the Protestant. Protestant clergy can get married post ordination, can become leaders of their church, can remarry, divorce etc. i.e they are no different to the laity in this regard. Eastern clergy can be ordained if married (an generally are) but may not marry after ordination or become bishops. i.e the discipline of celibacy is still honoured though not enforced on all.
No it is not. This is your interpretation. I have known many Eastern priests, both Catholic and Orthodox, and have tremendous respect for them. What I do do is question WHY there is a need to alter the discipline of the Latin Church. If there is no bar to a married man being ordained under the current discipline then there must be an agenda for those who insist the discipline must be changed. The onus must be on those who want change to justify that change as being an improvement on what already exists and has existed for 2 millenium.
I
InnocentIII
Guest
otm
You are setting up a strawman here. Married men can be called to the priesthood and the Church already acknowledges this and allows for the ordination of such men.
The Church does however require such to show that they are called, it does not simply allow any married man to claim he has a call. It also regards the priesthood and the married state to be two separate callings. No-one is forced into one or the other - we have a choice (as I did). It seems to me that this has now become an issue of wanting to have your cake and eat it too i.e to choose both marriage and priesthood. There is also I think (despite your disclaimer) an underlying acceptance of the modern belief that a healthy “sex life” is necesasary for a healthy psyche and that celibate priests are by definition less whole than married people.
Again I ask - if the possibility already exists why change the discipline unless there is another agenda here.
- Status