priest who leave to marry

[Joyousguard]

Then why does Paul discuss Apostle’s wives in 1 Corinthians and Bishop’s wives in 1 Timothy?

That quote is not from me. If you will notice, I am arguing for a married clergy.

 

[Joyousguard]

The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is God. Subsequently, a vow to the Church is a vow to God.

That does make a nice bumbper sticker but it is not very “good theology”. A vow to the Church is not a vow to God and should not be mistaken as one and vice versa. There are rules and regulations in the church that have almost nothing to do with theology although indirectly. Certain organizations within the Church like The legionaires of Christ recently had their special vows revoked by the pope. (simplified analysis) The Church although a part of the Body of Christ also contains many elemenets and decisions that are really non reliogiously motivated but made for reasons of preserving the institution rather than good theology.

 

[whatevergirl]

I suppose this is a matter of opinion. The burden I was referring to is celibacy. I wouldn’t use the term ‘easy’ or ‘hard’, but if celibacy is not a burden, why is it a sacrifice?

I agree we should have compassion, but I also think that understanding, forgiveness and charity are called for. I am frankly astounded by the lack of compassion and charity by many on this thread. Maybe leaving the priesthood is a sin, I really don’t know. All I know is that my personal attitude towards anyone who chooses to serve me, my family, and my God for any length of time is thankfulness. I’ll let God sort out the rest.

Good point–but I don’t necessarily consider burdens to be sacrifices. A burden can be something that weighs us down, while a sacrifice lifts us up to our Lord. He actually carries our burdens, if we let Him. That’s just my personal interpretation of those words.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I’m sorry to be joining this discussion late… it’s a subject very near and dear to my heart…

My dad used to be a priest. He was laicized, then my parents married in the church.

He has been able to contribute to our parish community on a very significant level. He helps teach the RCIA program, helps run the Christ Renews our Parish program, and is a member of our parish counsel.

I think it’s important to remember the idea of forgiveness. There was a time when he felt called to the priesthood, but for some reason that calling was simply not the end of his story. The church has a process for handling these situations and moving on in love and peace… we should all learn from this and take example.

 

[He_Man]

I’m sorry to be joining this discussion late… it’s a subject very near and dear to my heart…

My dad used to be a priest. He was laicized, then my parents married in the church.

He has been able to contribute to our parish community on a very significant level. He helps teach the RCIA program, helps run the Christ Renews our Parish program, and is a member of our parish counsel.

I think it’s important to remember the idea of forgiveness. There was a time when he felt called to the priesthood, but for some reason that calling was simply not the end of his story. The church has a process for handling these situations and moving on in love and peace… we should all learn from this and take example.

I don’t think any is arguing against the process of laicization. The question was posed regarding a priest who just up and left, because they felt like they wanted to be a family man. That’s where the issue is. If the Vatican essentially nullifies a past ordination, who are we to object.

Again, it is like the difference between going AWOL and getting an honorable discharge. One is legit; the other isn’t.

 

[whatevergirl]

I’m sorry to be joining this discussion late… it’s a subject very near and dear to my heart…

My dad used to be a priest. He was laicized, then my parents married in the church.

He has been able to contribute to our parish community on a very significant level. He helps teach the RCIA program, helps run the Christ Renews our Parish program, and is a member of our parish counsel.

I think it’s important to remember the idea of forgiveness. There was a time when he felt called to the priesthood, but for some reason that calling was simply not the end of his story. The church has a process for handling these situations and moving on in love and peace… we should all learn from this and take example.

Wow–that is an amazing story, Em! I don’t know anyone personally who went through something like this–so you’re my closest person to it. Thanks for sharing with us.

 

[He_Man]

You are right, I love to using logic, good theology and objective. You may try to deal with the rational I presented earlier in my argument instead of trying to assail my credibility from other threads.

Your credibility, or lack of it, is very relevant here. I’m not the first person to notice.

 

[whatevergirl]

I have been reading throughout this thread, and am confused of what to believe. I have studied some of Catholic history, but I’m not a history buff like my husband. He enjoys the RCC history very much–and he was not under the impression that priests were asked to be celibate, in the early Church, simply for pragmatic inheritance reasons. So–how do I know which are facts and which are not, on this thread?

As one who is not a church history ‘scholar,’ I am getting confused on what to believe.

 

[THurifer2]

WOW–I never knew any of this–it’s an eye opener, and my husband will be interested in this–he follows Church history. I agree that married priests would be a viable solution.

Solution for what? The lack of faith?

Its just too bad that we don’t have a way of measuring how many Catholics are pew sitting zombies. How many people are “cultural” Catholics? How many of them are even remotely convicted in thier faith.

The pope himself said the church may become smaller yet purer.

Perhaps there really isn’t a priest shortage.

 

[whatevergirl]

Solution for what? The lack of faith?

Its just too bad that we don’t have a way of measuring how many Catholics are pew sitting zombies. How many people are “cultural” Catholics? How many of them are even remotely convicted in thier faith.

The pope himself said the church may become smaller yet purer.

Perhaps there really isn’t a priest shortage.

Priest shortage, and please don’t judge me. I am not a pew sitting zombie. That was very insulting for you to say.

 

[Joyousguard]

I don’t think any is arguing against the process of laicization. The question was posed regarding a priest who just up and left, because they felt like they wanted to be a family man. That’s where the issue is. If the Vatican essentially nullifies a past ordination, who are we to object.

Again, it is like the difference between going AWOL and getting an honorable discharge. One is legit; the other isn’t.

Your understanding of the theology and the Church is a bit off. God trumps the Vatican in ever regards. The process of laicization as I have explained can not possible exist. What the church hierarchy apparently does not see or simple wish to avoid is the fact that this “laicization” fiction affects all the other sacrements as well and if true would destroy the very fabric of all the sacrements themselves.

It is time for people to stop arguing for it because Canon law says so or the Vatican says so and start looking at how destructive this poorly argued understanding is. This is a time bomb waiting to go off.

 

[Joyousguard]

Your credibility, or lack of it, is very relevant here. I’m not the first person to notice.

The great Roman orator Cicero once said “If you can not attack a person’s argument attack their character” Thank you for proving him right 2000 years later.

Perhaps you may not be the first person to notice my supposed lack of credibility but you are continuing to doubt it without saying why my credibility is in question.

 

[Joyousguard]

I have been reading throughout this thread, and am confused of what to believe. I have studied some of Catholic history, but I’m not a history buff like my husband. He enjoys the RCC history very much–and he was not under the impression that priests were asked to be celibate, in the early Church, simply for pragmatic inheritance reasons. So–how do I know which are facts and which are not, on this thread?

As one who is not a church history ‘scholar,’ I am getting confused on what to believe.

The difficulty with any argument is that each side typically presents the best arguments and leaves out anything that could potentially harm their case. I would highly recommend verifying any post here that you may disagree with but sometimes more so if you agree with them because sometimes we are blinded by our own bias.

That is one of the reasons why I try to argue as logical and rationally as possible with one argument built upon the other so that each car in the train proceeds in order.

I love the Ctaholic Church and do have a deep respect for Rome and that is why I can not sit idley by and watch negligence or abuse go on within the Church. What the Church hierarchy is doing right now is jeopardizing the Catholic church tremendously and it is no wonder that people are leaving by the droves. People vote with their feet. Some can not recieve the Eucahrist but once a month or less. 5000 parishes in this country have no priest. The average age of all priests in this country is around 55 or so. We have lost approxiametly 5500 priests from the total number in this country since 1970 or so.

The church looks at it as a time that will pass but they do not see that they themesleves are mostly to blame for these things.

Everything I have presented is verifiable and confirmable by all those on this forum with simple searches or an even simpler means of using logic and reason to follow my arguments. I have no intention of hiding anything from those who wish to know.

 

[cameron_lansing]

I’m sorry to be joining this discussion late… it’s a subject very near and dear to my heart…

I have said all I intend to regarding the validity of sacraments, but add this after Em’s post. Certainly we must be compassionate to those men who have left the active priesthood. Due to my contacts and work in ministry, I know a number of wonderful laicized priests and their families, and think very highly of them. Often their rescripts of laicization do permit them to function in some parish and other ministries. Over 20 years ago, I had three of them who served as parish catechists, and they were excellent. I know others who are pastoral associates and who do various forms of counseling. They enrich the Church rather than seek to work outside of it on the basis of asserting a superior competence that sets up an opposition of Christ and his Church

As to a subsidiary issue, mandatory celibacy in the western Church is not a closed issue from a disciplinary basis by any means, since it is dispensible, and the impediment to marriage which holy orders presents has also been dispensed. The Pastoral Provision and the limited practice of granting widowed deacons to remarry acknowledge that. So one is certainly at liberty to hold differing positions on its merits.

However, we should clearly know that the Church considers it is an obligation (c. 227) that is publicly assumed “before God and the Church.” (c. 1037) To parse it out of meaningful existence does not seem in any way intellectually proper to me. The discipline may change but we should at least be aware that the Church does understand it as an obligation assumed before God, which the Church considers itself capable of dispensing in connection with rescripts of laicization.

In the end, the question is about where one finds authority for the Church to act on this matter, and to regulate matters of validity of sacraments. One places it in the Church or one places it elsewhere.

 

[Bubble]

That does make a nice bumbper sticker but it is not very “good theology”. A vow to the Church is not a vow to God and should not be mistaken as one and vice versa. There are rules and regulations in the church that have almost nothing to do with theology although indirectly. Certain organizations within the Church like The legionaires of Christ recently had their special vows revoked by the pope. (simplified analysis) The Church although a part of the Body of Christ also contains many elemenets and decisions that are really non reliogiously motivated but made for reasons of preserving the institution rather than good theology.

During their ordination priests take vows of obedience to their bishops who represent the authority of the Church. It’s not good theology to try to seperate the authority of the Church from the authority of Christ.

 

[He_Man]

You may express your opinion as you wish. I on the other hand like to use something called an objective standard to look at theology, divine truth and absolute reality.

Using long sentences and obtuse words doesn’t add any truth to your posts. It just comes off as preening and silly.

[This is a very limited understanding of the Church and you would do to remember that even the popes and the church have been wrong on occasion. Our understanding of theology is a process and in the regards to celebacy the church is putting itself in a very diffciult position that could adversly affect all the sacrements and the very church itself.

Yes, and pardon me if I trust the current Pope over random strangers on an internet mesage board. Plus, your point is essentially like saying “since the US was wrong about legalizing slavery, they are wrong for banning partial term abortions.” That makes no sense.

How is this relevant? Again, where is your proof. All you seem to do is point out past mistakes, but not PROVE YOUR POINT about the current question.

[Your objection is invalid because you are objecting to something completly different then what I have said. A call from God trumps Church doctrine. Gods authority trumps the authority of the church. You would do well to remeber that always.

The Church’s TRUE authority will ALWAYS line up with God’s authority. And how do you know this call is from God? Satan has a loud voice as well.

I never suggested that anyone did not talk to priests in private but merely that you might be suprised at what many of them say when you do. Your attempt to be clever would be better served rereading my posts perhaps???

[/quote]

Rereading your posts won’t add any truth to them. And your point, again, makes no sense. What you basically are saying is “I didn’t say you haven’t spoken to Priests in private, only that you might be surprised what they say.”

Que pasa?

That’s like saying “I’m not saying you haven’t ever eaten pizza, only that you might be surprised by the flavor.” You did in fact say I needed to talk to Priests in private; stop being coy about it.

[You assume far too much about me

I haven’t assumed anything; I base these comments on your posts.

[These are the same old arguments being respun decade after decade without any result. I am not going to dive into this argument because it has been refuted time and time again yet the arguments still keep coming back.

When you can’t refute, turn tail and run. I get it.

They arguments HAVEN’T been refuted; they still exist. It’s just that angsty people who like to rail against the Church’s authority won’t ever get in line and be obedient. THAT has been going on for decades.

[Funny how they were able to make it work for such a long time in the church before celibacy. Funny how they are making it work in Latin America and Central America. Perhaps it is time to take these old arguments and give them a good dust off and really look at the solutions many have worked so hard to propose.

Perhaps it is time you actually prove a point. Provide some links, empirical evidence, something, rather than continuing to shout “but we need to drop celibacy!!!”

You are the one trying to change policy, not us.

[It is interesting to note that the total number of priest that we have lost (not replaced with new ordinations) in this country in the last 30 years is roughly around the same number now working to be deacons. Funny how the math works out on that one.

In other unfounded news, the number of protein shakes I drank last tuesday is equal to the number of Super Bowls Joe Gibbs won. Neat little factoid; very little meaning.

Links would be nice. And proof that this has anything to with one another would be better. Correlation and causation are NOT the same thing.

[You are partially right but your argument that it is the way it is because the church says so is a very poor answer indeed. One might wonder if Arius had been responded to in such a way what would have happened. I have stated nothing but facts and theological understanding arrived at through logical and rational terms and methods.

You haven’t stated any facts. You have given opinion after opinion, and begged that the Church and the rest of us listen.

The burden of proof is on you, seeing as how you are the one choosing to buck the Church’s authority.
[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

 

[He_Man]

It is time for people to stop arguing for it because Canon law says so or the Vatican says so and start looking at how destructive this poorly argued understanding is. This is a time bomb waiting to go off.

Call us and the Vatican when it does.

 

[Em_in_FL]

In the end, the question is about where one finds authority for the Church to act on this matter, and to regulate matters of validity of sacraments. One places it in the Church or one places it elsewhere.

Thank you for your post…

I think this is the crux of the matter… what authority do you trust?
As of now, given the current tradition of celibate priests, and from my own personal experience… I truly believe in a celibate priesthood.
At the same time, it saddens me to think that my dad left that part of his life behind (something I look back on with pride for my father!)…
But, he could never have been the father he was to his 4 children if he had the obligation of the priesthood at the same time. He raised 4 children who have, in turn, helped to build the church… and have been given the greatest gift ever… faith!

I know 2 other men who have left the priesthood…
One was a priest at our parish who ministered to the sick and left to get married and became a family psychiatrist.
The other one is now married to the principal of our parish school.

I’m proud of my dad… not because he “left something behind”… but because he was called to a different vocation and still loves the faith and the Church with the same devotion.

 

[Joyousguard]

During their ordination priests take vows of obedience to their bishops who represent the authority of the Church. It’s not good theology to try to seperate the authority of the Church from the authority of Christ.

There are certain core doctrines that the Church can not possibly be wrong on. However, unless these doctrines and teachings have been spokena upon “ex cathedra” you can almost always make a distinction bewteen the authority of the Church and the authority of Christ. Benedecit said something similiar when he relaesed his book on Christ.

 

[Joyousguard]

He Man;3200009]Using long sentences and obtuse words doesn’t add any truth to your posts. It just comes off as preening and silly.

Sorry, I’ll try to use smaller words and sentences to ensure its easier to read and understand in the future. As to the charge of using “obtuse” words that is definetely a new one to me and I thank you for the chuckle.

Yes, and pardon me if I trust the current Pope over random strangers on an internet mesage board. Plus, your point is essentially like saying “since the US was wrong about legalizing slavery, they are wrong for banning partial term abortions.” That makes no sense

. That was not the point at all. You simply assume that the church is correct about everything and this is not always the case. They are however the closest to the truth of anything on the earth. To assume they are infailible when all popes since the inception of Papal infailibility have clearly said that unless a pope speaks infailibly on a particluar matter there is the possibility of it being wrong. The pope has never spoken infailably on a married clergy.

How is this relevant? Again, where is your proof. All you seem to do is point out past mistakes, but not PROVE YOUR POINT about the current question

.
Because you are insisting that the chgurch is right about everything but that is most clealry not the case nor has it ever been nor does the Church claim to be.

The Church’s TRUE authority will ALWAYS line up with God’s authority.

So again, if the church’s authority will always line up with God’s authority burning herretics or those accused of heresey was fine because it was God’s will? What about the authority of many bishops to move abusive priests around instead of removing them from the parishes? I suppose all of this is God’s will as well?

And how do you know this call is from God?

By the fruit that is born from the call. Same way we know that a call to the priesthood is from God.

Satan has a loud voice as well.

Are you suggesting that ordained men called to marriage is the work of Satan? try not mention this to our Eastern Rite brothers and sisters.

Rereading your posts won’t add any truth to them. And your point, again, makes no sense. What you basically are saying is “I didn’t say you haven’t spoken to Priests in private, only that you might be surprised what they say.”

But rereading them helps to understand them rather than make an eisegesis of your own rather than reading what i have actually said.

Que pasa?

That’s like saying “I’m not saying you haven’t ever eaten pizza, only that you might be surprised by the flavor.” You did in fact say I needed to talk to Priests in private; stop being coy about it.

What I did say was that you would be suprised at what they will admit in private conversations that they know will not get out.

I haven’t assumed anything; I base these comments on your posts.

Yet you make assumptions about who I am or what credentials or posititions I hold. Your analysis was inaccurate and an assumption on your part.

When you can’t refute, turn tail and run. I get it.

Not at all. I merely stated that I do not wish to reargue this arguments from 50 years ago that have not been updated nor seriosly dealt with the objections and solutions noted by others.

My argument has not been one merely of a structural nature but one mainly of a theological objection.

They arguments HAVEN’T been refuted; they still exist. It’s just that angsty people who like to rail against the Church’s authority won’t ever get in line and be obedient. THAT has been going on for decades.

Sometimes it helps to read what other people objections are before you simple dismiss them. A method that has been taught since the ancient days of Greece that comes in very handy with many things such as a mrried clergy and even issues such as abortion.

Perhaps it is time you actually prove a point. Provide some links, empirical evidence, something, rather than continuing to shout “but we need to drop celibacy!!!”

You are the one trying to change policy, not us.

I made an extensive argument that you seem to have either missed or avoided earlier in this thread, please deal with that if you could.