priest who leave to marry

[whatevergirl]

I think I should have rephrassed that a bit better. Most priest sdo not take a vow of celebacy. However, those that do take a vow of celebacy to God but find that they are also called to marriage by God. This creates a very intersting dilema. Where they actually called to the priesthood int he first place? Where they actuall called to marriage? God calls men to the priesthood who then promise a vow of celibacy (which is really to the church and not God). However, many of them are then called by God to marriage. A vow of celibacy to the Church means very little to the man upsatirs when he then decides to call these men to marriage.

The fact of the matter is that God calls men to the priesthood and marriage just like he picked the disciples (some married, some not). Most priests are not always 100% certain that they are called to the priesthood and believe me it can be a very nerve racking experience to try and sort through that discernement. The same thing applies with marriage only now a priest is also concerned about his duty to Rome and the Church as well as perhaps public perception.

Thank you for that clarification, Joyous! Ok, I’m appointing you my question answerer. I hope that is okay with you, of course.

So–a priest takes a vow of celibacy to the Church? Why? And why I ask why, is I always thought that it was a vow to God?

And finally, why would God call a man to become a priest–devote part of his life to something then call him to be married? I look forward to your replies.

 

[Joyousguard]

Wrong, they need to finish their job.

Insert “father of three”, “husband”, or “wife” instead of Priest and see how sympathy you draw. Would you honestly cut your wife the same slack if she bolted due to fatigue and burnout???

They knew what they were doing when they chose the life. We oew them sympathy and support while they are steadfast, not compassion when they bail on God and the people who need them.

You seem to think a priest can not be a priest and a father at the same time and you would be greatly mistaken as 1000’s of Catholic priests in this country will testify and prove on a daily basis.

 

[whatevergirl]

Boy are you in for a shock. Talk with priests in the open about celibacy and a married clergy and they will support Rome. Talk with them in private and boy will you be shocked as to what they believe. You are very off if you believe that just laity do not believe in a married clergy.

I don’t know if I should cry reading that.

 

[Joyousguard]

whatevergirl;3197490]Thank you for that clarification, Joyous! Ok, I’m appointing you my question answerer. I hope that is okay with you, of course.

So–a priest takes a vow of celibacy to the Church? Why? And why I ask why, is I always thought that it was a vow to God?

celibacy was not mandated in the Church until reletively recently as history goes. The Church enacted celibacy to keep priests from giving church land to their children when they died and to enact a greater degree of control over the clergy. It was money as well as control issue that celibacy was mandated and the theology that they presented came later as an argument for it.

A priest has a loyalty to Rome as most Catholics do even if we do not agree withRome all the time. We still have high respect and almost reverence for the pope regardless. However, the issue of celibacy is one of obligation and duty to Rome rather than to God. If God wanted all his priests to be celibate he wouldn’t have chosen Peter as the first pope. Some men are called to be celbate others are called to marriage and still others are called to marriage and the priesthood. The Church over the years has almost whitewashed the orignal reason for celibacy and tried to replace it with the will of God. God never asked for mandatory celibacy, only the Church has. The vow of celibacy is not to God but to the Church that has mandated it. Men priests are obviously almost tortured between their love and duty to the church and Rome and their calling from God. (believe me it is not a fun time )

And finally, why would God call a man to become a priest–devote part of his life to something then call him to be married? I look forward to your replies.

Priesthood doe snot end at marriage, it never has and all those claiming it does would be nothing but a fallacy. God calls men to the priesthood before marriage, I think, to ensure that their marriage would not interfere with the intense amount of study in the seminary that is required. It is a lot and sometimes you may have to go for 8 years. being married and then going to the seminary would present something of a problem in this regards. It would make more sense that afterwards would be a better choice in most circumstances. Also, some men are not quite ready for marriage and only become so after being ordained and living as a priest for awhile. Not only do these men then become ready for marriage but they also become really good husbands as well.

A married priest is so much better prepared to deal with the probelms we face and the church faces. They understand the family so much better because they themselves have children and a wife. The church still has not become comfortable with the role of women with the Church.

Sorry this is a bit rushed, i tried to condense it. Suffice it to say I could write for quite a long time on the subject.

 

[Joyousguard]

I don’t know if I should cry reading that.

I think I should have re wrote that too. Sorry.

I meant to say that “he is way off if he thinks its just laity who believe in a married clergy or advocate a married clergy”. I have talked with many religious who think otherwise and they have talked with many themselves. However, they do not wish to rock the boat too much and do anything to hurt Rome or the Church in anyway.

You would be suprised, maybe even some of your co workers or neighbors are catholic priests. Off hand I know about 10.

 

[whatevergirl]

celibacy was not mandated in the Church until reletively recently as history goes. The Church enacted celibacy to keep priests from giving church land to their children when they died and to enact a greater degree of control over the clergy. It was money as well as control issue that celibacy was mandated and the theology that they presented came later as an argument for it.

A priest has a loyalty to Rome as most Catholics do even if we do not agree withRome all the time. We still have high respect and almost reverence for the pope regardless. However, the issue of celibacy is one of obligation and duty to Rome rather than to God. If God wanted all his priests to be celibate he wouldn’t have chosen Peter as the first pope. Some men are called to be celbate others are called to marriage and still others are called to marriage and the priesthood. The Church over the years has almost whitewashed the orignal reason for celibacy and tried to replace it with the will of God. God never asked for mandatory celibacy, only the Church has. The vow of celibacy is not to God but to the Church that has mandated it. Men priests are obviously almost tortured between their love and duty to the church and Rome and their calling from God. (believe me it is not a fun time )

Priesthood doe snot end at marriage, it never has and all those claiming it does would be nothing but a fallacy. God calls men to the priesthood before marriage, I think, to ensure that their marriage would not interfere with the intense amount of study in the seminary that is required. It is a lot and sometimes you may have to go for 8 years. being married and then going to the seminary would present something of a problem in this regards. It would make more sense that afterwards would be a better choice in most circumstances. Also, some men are not quite ready for marriage and only become so after being ordained and living as a priest for awhile. Not only do these men then become ready for marriage but they also become really good husbands as well.

A married priest is so much better prepared to deal with the probelms we face and the church faces. They understand the family so much better because they themselves have children and a wife. The church still has not become comfortable with the role of women with the Church.

Sorry this is a bit rushed, i tried to condense it. Suffice it to say I could write for quite a long time on the subject.

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.

 

[water]

Is there any survey on Latin-Rite Priests answering questions such as:

• Do you find it hard to be celibate?
• Even it is hard, do you prefer celibacy over marriage?

 

[az_4_faith]

Boy are you in for a shock. Talk with priests in the open about celibacy and a married clergy and they will support Rome. Talk with them in private and boy will you be shocked as to what they believe. You are very off if you believe that just laity do not believe in a married clergy.

Wow. My priest friends tell me the opposite. They thank God for their celibacy and get quite tired of everyone insisting it’s a burden.

 

[cameron_lansing]

"Furthermore, the Church maintains that if a priest has left the clerical state, then he cannot administer the sacraments (including celebrating Mass). The only thing he can do is administer Penance in the event the penitent is near death

I did not address all sacraments. My post was narrower than that, and simply says that the Church asserts the right to determine what is needed for validity of sacraments. We understand that it does so on the basis of divine authority, so that Peter only speaks as Christ would have him speak.

In the case of a laicized priest or one who defected without laicization, the celebration of any sacrament, would be against the law of the Church unless it provides an exception.

Faculties are needed for the valid conferral of absolution, of confirmation, and for valid assistance at a marriage. The Church provides them to laicized priests, or those who have defected but have not been laicized, in danger of death situations involving absolution and confirmation. The point is moot to the extraordinary celebration of marriage. The laicized and defected have no basis for witnessing marriage validly and the law would not provide the faculty.

And, as is known, anyone with right intention is capable of validly conferring baptism regardless of whether it is conferred lawfully or not. In danger of death, it would be conferred lawfully. The anointing of the sick would be conferred validly but illicitly apart from danger of death.

The celebration of Eucharist would be valid but it would be illicit. Laicization does not remove the ontological character of holy orders. (But even there we might also have to contend with the matter of the intention of the person. In celebrating the sacraments, the intention of the minister is important. It may be that a priest, either having been laicized or simply abandoning the Catholic priesthood, celebrates Eucharist in a such a way that he does not intend to do what the Catholic Church does when it celebrates the Eucharist. If the intention becomes substantially defective, then a doubt of validity might arise. But that is a very broad area of discussion, and I only raise the possibility.)

Joyousguard has expressed a rejection of Church law in a manner similar to the contentions of various groups such as Corpus (Corps of Resigned Priests United for Service), Rent a Priest, and the like. This has become obvious as his posts have unfolded in detail and fervency. He is attempting, it would seem, to provide an apologia for married priests in the Latin Church. That is another topic entirely. The one at bar is the question of validity at present.

In saying whether or not the Church can impose requirements for validity, he appears to have rejected the notion that it has the authority to do so and to have set up an opposition between Christ and his Church.

This assertion of a competence and authority superior to that of the Church to determine God’s will is scarcely a new phenomenon. And, with some interest, I note that Corpus’ website is now “seeking single and married women and married men who are called to ordination as Roman Catholic priests.”

Certainly we must be compassionate to those men who have left the active priesthood for whatever reason and under whatever circumstances, but we should not be misled about the fact that the sacraments are given to the Church and not to individuals asserting authority apart from it.

Indeed, intent, form, matter are required for the validity of sacraments. But so is a minister who is competent to administer the sacrament. The Church regulates all of those. We are not at liberty to pick and choose.

 

[He_Man]

It is a legal fiction no matter how you try to spin it. Priests are never relived of their commitment to ministry nor can they be.

What is"fiction"?

Try reading this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=195681&highlight=laicized

or this

newadvent.org/cathen/08744a.htm

There are a ton of topics on laicization, and what the Priest can do afterwards. Not all laicized Priests get married.

No married priests walk away from their ministry. Just because they are not in a parish doe snot mean that they do not go about living the sacrament.

Who said anything about working in a parish? The question was about a Priest deciding to shirk the rules and marry AFTER being ordained long ago. Which is a no no. Whether or not you agree with the tradition is irrelevant. Neither you or I makes the rules, and thus, our opinions don’t matter.

This is a very warped understanding. Priests have made a vow of cleibacy to the Church not to God. Celibacy was mandated by the Church, not God. None of them walk away.

The Church speaks for God. Where are you getting this stuff?

Who do you think they got the idea from, Satan?

That’s like saying any policy that wasn’t in place at the time of Jesus’s death is null and void; that is crazy. That’s one of the first attacks non-Catholics use against us, and it sounds just as silly then, too.

Boy are you in for a shock. Talk with priests in the open about celibacy and a married clergy and they will support Rome. Talk with them in private and boy will you be shocked as to what they believe. You are very off if you believe that just laity do not believe in a married clergy.

Tell me, how many Priests have I spoken to in private?

Okay, now that we’ve established you have no idea, we can move on…

I have spoken to many over the years, and the uproar is always loudest from lay people (like those on Catholic message boards who have never been Priests…). They in fact, welcome their celibacy as a blessing, and a gift.

And how are Priests going to support multiple children and a wife, both in parenting and finances. There is not a lot of free time in the evenings with adoration, confession, daily mass, and Church administration. Who is going to pay the requisite salary? Is private education an option? College finances for the children? Where is surplus of cash going to come from; you can’t tax the congregation, and if they wanted to give more, they already would. They are not going to just start tithing because Fr. Smith has 4 mouths to feed. If starving children in other countries and the plight of the homeless don’t sway people, I doubt married Priests will.

If celibacy were such a big issue, explain to me why our Deaconate is not overflowing with Deacons??? They can, after all, be married prior to becoming Deacons.

Either way, anecdotal evidence is useless, since the Church has spoken, and they make the rules. This is NOT the Church of Joyousguard, or the Church of He Man. Your borderline heretical posts don’t help a person looking for FACTS about the Church. Take your posts to a topic where people want OPINIONS.

 

[He_Man]

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.

I’d read the poster’s post history before being swayed… It is very eye opening.

 

[Genesis315]

Being a priest is a burden? Being married is not easier than being a priest. I just view them as completely different vocations, not one easier than the other.

St. Francis de Sales actually thought marriage was more difficult:

“If there was a year of trial, as there is before one may take the vows in a monastery, very few would go through with it…the occasions for suffering are more frequent in this state, marriage, than in any other…The state of marriage requires more virtue and constancy than any other. It is a perpetual exercise in mortification.”

 

[THurifer2]

I just think these problems are less, than what we’re going to have when we can’t receive the sacraments because of the lack of priest.

Jim

Jim most Catholics don’t even believe in the sacraments.

Why isn’t there lines at the confessionals EVER.

Marriage isn’t the problem. It is a complete and total collapse of faith…even in the minor things. My church youth group has ZERO boys that is grades 9-10…NONE!..I belong to a church of 400 families. Of those 400 familes there is about 10 of us families ages 30–40 Y/O who are “active”. People haven’t a CLUE of anything Catholic…but when they do hear somthing it is usually some “expert” whining about married priests and women priestesses… Which of course just fuels the reasons for marginal Catholics to be disinterested. I personally feel we are going to have to wait for a certain Generation to die off to reverse the immense damage they have done…it will be awhile they are just nearing retirement now.

 

[Genesis315]

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.

What she said is not true. First off, God gave St. Peter the authority to make these decisions–therefore, in this matter God is with the Pope (what he binds on earth is bound in Heaven, etc.) because He has promised to be so–so violating the pope’s authority is going against God. Secondly, celibacy is not as new as people make out to be.

From the First Council of Nicea:

“3. This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.”

Notice no exception for “wife.”

St. Jerome writes (AD 393 ):

“The apostles have either been virgins or, though married, have lived celibate lives. Those persons who are chosen to be bishops, priests, and deacons are either virgins or widowers; or at least when once they have received the priesthood, are vowed to perpetual chastity.”

newadvent.org/fathers/3001048.htm

This is a tradition dating to the Apostles themselves, not some second millenium innovation.

In 692, the Quinisext Council, a local council in the East, broke with this tradition, but the West never did. St. Bede, a contemporary, calls it a “reprobate council.” The Easterners were permitted out of economy, to prevent an all out schism–for this same reason, those in the East have been permitted to keep this tradition–because when we take it away, they go into schism again–it’s economy, not something that is necessarily best for the Church. Married clergy is not something that is per se evil, but the overall tradition from the Apostles strongly supports celibacy. The arguments against celibacy are ancient too–they are nothing new to our age–and there is a reason the Roman Church has never yielded to them.

 

[Joyousguard]

Who said anything about working in a parish? The question was about a Priest deciding to shirk the rules and marry AFTER being ordained long ago. Which is a no no. Whether or not you agree with the tradition is irrelevant. Neither you or I makes the rules, and thus, our opinions don’t matter.

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.

The Church speaks for God. Where are you getting this stuff?

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.

Who do you think they got the idea from, Satan?

I guess they must have gotten the idea of burning people and the inquisition from God too? Perhaps you should read up on an era of history refered to as the “Renaissance Popes”

That’s like saying any policy that wasn’t in place at the time of Jesus’s death is null and void; that is crazy. That’s one of the first attacks non-Catholics use against us, and it sounds just as silly then, too.

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.

Tell me, how many Priests have I spoken to in private?
Okay, now that we’ve established you have no idea, we can move on…

I am beginning to wonder if we are even posting on the same thread:shrug: 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???

I have spoken to many over the years, and the uproar is always loudest from lay people (like those on Catholic message boards who have never been Priests…). They in fact, welcome their celibacy as a blessing, and a gift.

You assume far too much about me

And how are Priests going to support multiple children and a wife, both in parenting and finances. There is not a lot of free time in the evenings with adoration, confession, daily mass, and Church administration. Who is going to pay the requisite salary? Is private education an option? College finances for the children? Where is surplus of cash going to come from; you can’t tax the congregation, and if they wanted to give more, they already would. They are not going to just start tithing because Fr. Smith has 4 mouths to feed. If starving children in other countries and the plight of the homeless don’t sway people, I doubt married Priests will.

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.

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.

If celibacy were such a big issue, explain to me why our Deaconate is not overflowing with Deacons???

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.

Either way, anecdotal evidence is useless, since the Church has spoken, and they make the rules. This is NOT the Church of Joyousguard, or the Church of He Man

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.

Your borderline heretical posts don’t help a person looking for FACTS about the Church. Take your posts to a topic where people want OPINIONS.

I have stated nothing but facts and theological understanding arrived at through logical and rational terms and methods.

 

[Joyousguard]

I’d read the poster’s post history before being swayed… It is very eye opening.

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.

 

[Joyousguard]

Genesis315;3198176]What she said is not true. First off, God gave St. Peter the authority to make these decisions–therefore, in this matter God is with the Pope (what he binds on earth is bound in Heaven, etc.) because He has promised to be so–so violating the pope’s authority is going against God. Secondly, celibacy is not as new as people make out to be.

The quote is more in reference to the sacrament of reconcilliation and not the church as whole. As i said earlier, to say that Peter had this power over all things would infer that the pope or the Church ahs power over God or heaven to do as the wish. This would infer that God himself would be able to be changed by man and thus under his power. This is not the argument you should be making here because the road leads nowhere.

From the First Council of Nicea:

“3. This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.”

Notice no exception for “wife.”

Notice the term “brought in to live with him”. I don’t know if are married but try telling your friends that about your wife and see how they react or how your wife would react for that matter. " i brought my wife in to live with me" sounds more like you are bringing her into live with you out of the kindness of your heart like a stray dog. I think it become obvious why wife is not on the list but should be taken as an assumption to be in the house already.

St. Jerome writes (AD 393 ):

“The apostles have either been virgins or, though married, have lived celibate lives. Those persons who are chosen to be bishops, priests, and deacons are either virgins or widowers; or at least when once they have received the priesthood, are vowed to perpetual chastity.”

newadvent.org/fathers/3001048.htm

It might be best if you look up “chastity” in the catholic encyclopedia and i think you should see my point even without me expalining it here. I think you have a misconception with what chastity means and all it entails. A married couple can be chaste.
This is a tradition dating to the Apostles themselves, not some second millenium innovation.

In 692, the Quinisext Council, a local council in the East, broke with this tradition, but the West never did. St. Bede, a contemporary, calls it a “reprobate council.” The Easterners were permitted out of economy, to prevent an all out schism–for this same reason, those in the East have been permitted to keep this tradition–because when we take it away, they go into schism again–it’s economy, not something that is necessarily best for the Church. Married clergy is not something that is per se evil, but the overall tradition from the Apostles strongly supports celibacy. The arguments against celibacy are ancient too–they are nothing new to our age–and there is a reason the Roman Church has never yielded to them.

So the church let them keep a married clergy for reasons other than theological ones? Just like the roman rite enforced celibacy for reason that were not theological. Thanks for the support.

 

[TMC]

Being a priest is a burden? Being married is not easier than being a priest. I just view them as completely different vocations, not one easier than the other. I agree though that they deserve compassion–anyone who is struggling to identify with his/her vocation, deserves our compassion.

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.

 

[TMC]

This is a tradition dating to the Apostles themselves, not some second millenium innovation.

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

 

[Bubble]

So–a priest takes a vow of celibacy to the Church? Why? And why I ask why, is I always thought that it was a vow to God?

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