priest who leave to marry

[whatevergirl]

(correct me if I’m wrong)…
I think he meant this in a THEOLOGICAL sense…

The church speaks on matters of theology…
Back when there was this Galileo issue a lot of theology and science were “mixed”…
The issue was resolved… the church should not be proclaiming matters of matters of science… but on matters of theology.

I think that’s what point he was trying to make… correct?

Ok, that makes sense. But, he would have to reply to you on that to be sure.

 

[Joyousguard]

=whatevergirl;3201352]What Joyousguard is saying though, let’s look at this one microcosm if you will of the whole debate–that the RCC has made some errors. (that were not of God) Galileo being imprisoned for example–for believing that the earth is not the center of the universe, and other theories–I mean, the Church has come out and said–we made a mistake. But, back during the time of Galileo, they stood by their decision, and looked at Galileo as a heretic. That wasn’t the fault of men, that was the Church collectively in agreement–imprisoning someone for having an opinion that differed from the RCC? Not meaning to stray from the core topic–but that is more along the lines of what JG is trying to say, I believe.

I owe you a cookie

I do believe in the value of priestly celibacy. I believe that it makes practical and spiritual sense–however–Jesus did select a married man, at least one that we know of, to be His Apostle.

A celibate or married clergy was the intent. Many peopel argue for one or the other. Its a lot like a mother and father needed to raise a familiy. Both bring very necessary parts to the family, both are different but both compliment eachother.

I have a question:

When were Catholic priests allowed to be married upon entering the seminary? (in other words, I believe that they couldn’t marry after they became priests,but were allowed to enter the priesthood as married man?) Is this not the case at all anymore?

First and foremost let me say that we do have married Catholic priests in the catholic church that are sanctioned and allowed by the Pope and all church authority. They are married priests from protestant religions who have converted or men from teh estern rite who convert.

From what I understand and I really need to verify all of this but I believe a man could marry at anytime before his ordination or after. But I really need to double check that one.

 

[THurifer2]

Please show documentation to back this up. Thanks.

Start with Genesis.

If man is created in His image and likeness how could the place we live not be the center of the universe.

 

[Joyousguard]

Really? DId this happen while I was at lunch?

If you consider canon law church teaching then yes

 

[Em_in_FL]

If you consider canon law church teaching then yes

Nope… PLEASE go read that link provided above.
catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

It is NOT doctrine.

 

[Joyousguard]

***Joyousguard says—>The Pharasies where not really after jesus because of His theological view but rather that He was seen a potential probelm in usurping their political power. Jesus was not crucified over theology but political power. ***

Partially true. The Pharisees disagreed with Jesus’ stance on rituals and religious matters, from day one, when Jesus began His ministry. He was seen as a threat–but the Pharisees were just as much threatened by people seeing Him as a Diety, as much as a strong political activist. (even though He was peace seeking)

The issue was why did they feel threatened by Jesus and it was because his religious views and teaching usurped their political power. Granted the son of God would cause problems with their religious views that is not the major reason they tried to have him crucified. Hope that clarifys any misunderstanding.

 

[whatevergirl]

Start with Genesis.

If man is created in His image and likeness how could the place we live not be the center of the universe.

Are you speaking from a theological perspective only? Pope JP2 wouldn’t have felt the need to apologize back in 1992 for this error in judgement against Galileo had the RCC not made an error.

 

[Joyousguard]

I am trying to get to all of your posts as fast as I can type. So bare with me if there are some errors because I am typing like the wind.

 

[Joyousguard]

The removal of priestly celbacy would have minor impact on the nearly pulseless church in some places.

The secularization of society has led to the damage of faith in humans and ultimately the church and the priesthood.

80 years ago there was not a priest shortage…they couldn’t get married back then…why is it different today? Please refrain from psychobable in your response…it is plain and simple…celibacy has absolutely little to do with any priest shortage.

You don’t see deacons beating the door down for ordination do you?

as I made mention in a previous post that the total number of priests that have been lost in the last 30 years seeom to wandering over to the deaconate. That is to say from 1970 to present day we have lost about 5000 priests in this country. what is interesting is that the number of those wishing to get ordained deacons has risen by that exact number.

 

[Joyousguard]

Maybe this article will help you:

catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

Now, inasmuch as I understand Joyousguard’s arguments, you can’t hold the same standard to priestly celibacy. Furthermore, making blanket statements such as “this goes against what Jesus said” without including what Jesus actually said are very weak.

Remind me of the link and I’ll try to get to your question and the link you posted.

As for the whole “what Jesus said thing” it was not what he said but what He did as well. Miracles such as the multiply loafs and water into wine were actions of Christ and should be considered as well as His words. The ressurection was an action after all:thumbsup:

 

[Joyousguard]

Just some thoughts. How does a priest balance his duty to his parishioners with a duty to his family, wife…kids. I can see a huge conflict with this. Non Catholic ministers do not have Sacraments to administer at odd hours that may be inconvenient to the minister but are important to Catholics.
How does the Church support these families of priests should priests be allowed to marry? These families would be the Church’s responsibility in a real sense. Celibate priests live in rectory as a general rule and that makes them available…or at least more so than if they would live in a normal private home with a private phone number. I like that and I hope the priest does too.
What I am saying here is that this brings on huge practical and financial problems for the Church that actually doesn’t solve a problem if I understand correctly that most priests are happy as celibates.
If most priests want to be married and have children ok fine but standby as allowing priests to have families will force the Church to pay them enough money to allow a priest to raise that family and they ALL will have to be paid the same, married or single…its the law. When a priest’s wife becomes unhappy with Church life and wants her priest husband to leave…what do you think might happen? I have a good idea. That is why I think this change would be very harmful to the Church. Nothing is simple is it?

Wonder how the protestant Chruches do it. I wonder how they supported a married clergy for all those years before celibacy was mandated. Many married priests do it everyday. they visit the sick, give last rites at 5 oclock in the morning and still get up to go to work when their alarm rings.

 

[benedictgal]

Remind me of the link and I’ll try to get to your question and the link you posted.

As for the whole “what Jesus said thing” it was not what he said but what He did as well. Miracles such as the multiply loafs and water into wine were actions of Christ and should be considered as well as His words. The ressurection was an action after all:thumbsup:

But, you still have not provided us with what Jesus said that would back up your views.

Furthermore, your constant citations of dissention do not necessarily justify your position, which is squarely in direct opposition to what the Church teaches. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Em_in_FL]

But, you still have not provided us with what Jesus said that would back up your views.

Furthermore, your constant citations of dissention do not necessarily justify your position, which is squarely in direct opposition to what the Church teaches. You can’t have it both ways.

Agreed… and the last few posts seem confusing to me???
I don’t think I’m following THE POINT JG is trying to make???

 

[Joyousguard]

Nope… PLEASE go read that link provided above.
catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

It is NOT doctrine.

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

. CCC

Converts are the exception as well as illicet ordiantions like in Baltimore.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, or CCC, is an official exposition of the teachings of the Catholic Church

,

doctrine: something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

Sorry for any confusion. That is why I made the statement earlier that theology is a science and we must pick our words carefully. I am defintily writing a bit too fast here.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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.

Nope, not all priest take vows. Obedience and celibacy are implied, but they do not necessarily take vows.

Jim

 

[Joyousguard]

But, you still have not provided us with what Jesus said that would back up your views.

Furthermore, your constant citations of dissention do not necessarily justify your position, which is squarely in direct opposition to what the Church teaches. You can’t have it both ways.

Here is the point clealry:

The dissentions I have noted is to reply to your objection that Church teaching is always correct. This is not anywhere near to the truth of the matter as many instances in Church history have clearly shown that dissent has always been in the church and many times has changed it for the better. I have been accused, not by you, of making heretical statements but others throught the history of the church were accused of the same things. In short, the church can be wrong the church has been wrong and the church will no doubt be wrong on certain issues in the future.

Christ Himself chose men who were married and celibate as His first priests. Christ set the tradition and standard of not just a celibate or married clergy but both. The Church goes against the actions of Christ in this regards and imposes a celibate only clergy within the Church (exceptions aside that I have previously mentioned)

 

[Joyousguard]

Agreed… and the last few posts seem confusing to me???
I don’t think I’m following THE POINT JG is trying to make???

I will be more than happy clarify anything that is a bit jumbled or confusing.

 

[Joyousguard]

Let me just try to bring this discussion back to something that is a bit more manageble for me so I can respond to each of you with the time you deserve.

1. The first issue on this thread that I commented on was laicization. To date I have yet to see soemone call into question any of the theological arguemnts put forth on why laiciazation can not exist and an ordianation can not be “nullified” for lack of a better term.
2. I have been told that the authority of the Church is the same thing as the authority of God but have shown through the examples of church doctors, eminent theologians, contamporary saints and historical examples that the Church has made mistakes and taught many things that were wrong calling into question the complete legitemacy of the argument that there is no air between the Authority of God and the Authority of the Church.I find it very difficult to believe that God would give the Church full authority to teach whatever it wants regardless of whether or not it is wrong or right. The Church has Authority Given to it by God but God’s Authority and Church Authority are not the same thing because that would infer that God would be wrong if the Church was wrong.
3. I have tried to present a very brief argument for the support of a married priesthood that no doubt will have to be expanded upon and refined given the time.

I believe this covers about the last 10 pages or so.

 

[az_4_faith]

I am trying to get to all of your posts as fast as I can type. So bare with me if there are some errors because I am typing like the wind.

I’d suggest you slow down and carefully choose your words rather than trying to fill the post with quantity . . . and confusion . . . I feel as if we’re reading the sequel to the Screwtape Letters . . .

Again, we know that Peter was married due to the mention of his mother-in-law, but was his wife alive or was Peter widowed and chaste?

What other specific scriptural or traditional references do we have that tell us the original 12 apostles were married, either before or after Jesus called them to ministry?

 

[Em_in_FL]

Christ Himself chose men who were married and celibate as His first priests. Christ set the tradition and standard of not just a celibate or married clergy but both. The Church goes against the actions of Christ in this regards and imposes a celibate only clergy within the Church (exceptions aside that I have previously mentioned)

The church has not closed the door on married priests (those who were FIRST married and THEN entered priesthood)…
Tradition (guided by the Holy Spirit) has guided the church towards celibate priesthood for many reasons… but certainly has not imposed a doctrinal statement on this.

The discussion was originally about laicization… for those who were FIRST priests and THEN were called to marriage.
There is not a tradition of going in this direction (even from Christ)…
Actually this direction IS in Canon law:

Can. 1037 An unmarried candidate for the permanent diaconate and a candidate for the presbyterate are not to be admitted to the order of diaconate unless they have assumed the obligation of celibacy in the prescribed rite publicly before God and the Church or have made perpetual vows in a religious institute.

So THAT is where laicization comes in…