priest who leave to marry

[Joyousguard]

Em_in_FL;3201060]I see where you’re coming from now… feeling upset over people who have left the faith over the “rules” of the church rather than basic faith tenets…

I have met people who have left because of doctrine but this seems to be a secondary issue.

However, God gave us His church to guide us and to give us a path toward holiness. This path is often very difficult… which is why many choose to leave. But a difficult path doesn’t mean that the destination is incorrect. It’s easy to take personal insult at “rules” you don’t agree with… it’s difficult to push on in faith.

Yes, the church has encountered problems in the past with it’s “rules”… and has learned from those problems in many ways. I’m sure there will be more issues in the future with more lessons.

The problem with this rule of celibacy is that it would seem to contradict what Christ Himself had started. The vast majority of priests who have left their parishes have expressed a great sense of lonliness, in addition a call to marriage. Celibacy is a gift but it is by no means a gift that is given with the call to the priesthood. Celibacy is an even greater gift when it is accepted freely and willing and not in reluctance because of the call to ordiantion.

However, there are two ways to approach an issue… either with defiance against the authority (think Martin Luther) or with love for that authority in moving past issues (think St. Francis going through the crusades and changing the church from within)…

There were many Catholic priests and theologians preaching against indulgences and elements that caused Luthor to leave the church. Savarnnola of Geneva (i believ) was preaching against the actions of the Church before the reformation. Catherine of Sienna poersonally implured the papacy to return from Avignone France to Rome during what is know as the Babylonia captivity. Mother Theresa told Rome that you either give me my own priests for my sisters or I will get my own and have them ordained. Erasmus of Rotterdamn was one of the first outspoke Catholic critics of the church to use humor to show that what the church was doing was wrong. The Church authority tried to stop him but he had found favor with the local monarch and thus was under protection. The Church is filled with Catholics who dissent from what the Church is doing or teaching but that fact is glossed over in Church History.

 

[benedictgal]

I have met people who have left because of doctrine but this seems to be a secondary issue.

The problem with this rule of celibacy is that it would seem to contradict what Christ Himself had started. The vast majority of priests who have left their parishes have expressed a great sense of lonliness, in addition a call to marriage. Celibacy is a gift but it is by no means a gift that is given with the call to the priesthood. Celibacy is an even greater gift when it is accepted freely and willing and not in reluctance because of the call to ordiantion.

There were many Catholic priests and theologians preaching against indulgences and elements that caused Luthor to leave the church. Savarnnola of Geneva (i believ) was preaching against the actions of the Church before the reformation. Catherine of Sienna poersonally implured the papacy to return from Avignone France to Rome during what is know as the Babylonia captivity. Mother Theresa told Rome that you either give me my own priests for my sisters or I will get my own and have them ordained. Erasmus of Rotterdamn was one of the first outspoke Catholic critics of the church to use humor to show that what the church was doing was wrong. The Church authority tried to stop him but he had found favor with the local monarch and thus was under protection. The Church is filled with Catholics who dissent from what the Church is doing or teaching but that fact is glossed over in Church History.

However, these cases are very different from what you are trying to advocate. Furthermore, just because there are Catholics who dissent from Church teaching doesn’t necessarily make them right.

As I have said before, you have not shown one shred of documentation to substantiate your cause. All you have provided is your own opinions, which are treading on dangerous ground. Furthermore, how can you say that a celibate priesthood is going against what Christ has said. Remember, he said that “there are those who freely renounce” marriage for the sake of the kingdom. Furthermore, he also said that those who give up “children, wives, brothers and sisters, parents” to follow Him will be greatly rewarded.

Oganizations such as CORPUS, which advocate the same thing that you are trying to promote simply want to have their cake and eat it, too, with little to no regard for Church teaching.

 

[Joyousguard]

benedictgal;3201202]Joyousguard, I have been reading your posts with some guarded concern. You say that you are Catholic, but, many of the statements you have made seem to contradict what the Church holds regarding celibacy in the priesthood. I had respectfully requested that you provide supporting documentation to defend your position. You have not.

Much of my conversation with you I belive had to do with laicization specifiaclly which I provided a very detailed argument against.

The very heart of the matter is that Peter has already spoken regarding celibacy in the priesthood. The late Pope John Paul II issued a document regarding this matter and Pope Benedict XVI continues to affirm this teaching. What I do not understand is how one can consider themselves Catholic but then take stands that are contrary to what the Church teaches?

Perhaps you should have asked the Jesuits when they were supressed by Rome this question or Mother Theresa or Savernola or Erasmus.

The Church is not a cafeteria where you can accept certain things and leave out others.

And you assume that the Church has not been steered in the correct course by dissent in the past. This could not be further from the truth.

It’s like the old country song that has a line, “What part of no don’t you understand?” Continuously advocating this kind of position against what the Church holds is treading on dangerous ground.

Maybe they will suppress me just like Rome did to the Jesuits.

 

[Em_in_FL]

We aren’t discussing an issue of doctrine… we all know that celibacy is a tradition and not a doctrinal requirement.
Yes, history has allowed for married priests… and when Christ started His church many of His first bishops and popes were married.
Looking forward, however… tradition has led us to a majority of celibate priests. There are valid arguments for why this has happened. None of them are to the exclusion of married priests… but overall this tradition has prevailed.

There are other non-doctrinal issues that have been guided by tradition. Tradition is a huge part of our faith and our church… not something that should be easily overlooked.

 

[benedictgal]

Much of my conversation with you I belive had to do with laicization specifiaclly which I provided a very detailed argument against.

Perhaps you should have asked the Jesuits when they were supressed by Rome this question or Mother Theresa or Savernola or Erasmus. And you assume that the Church has not been steered in the correct course by dissent in the past. This could not be further from the truth.
Maybe they will suppress me just like Rome did to the Jesuits.

You are comparing this situation to others that are entirely different. You appear to be advocating something to which the Church has already made a statement.

Furthermore, you may have discussed the issue of laicization, but, you have not given supporting documentation to back up your arguments in favor of a married priesthood, which, is, in fact, what you are trying to promote, only, you appear to be disgusing your views as fact.

 

[whatevergirl]

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 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.

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?

 

[whatevergirl]

I was formaly educated within the catholic church for many, many, many years

why that silly emoticon face?

 

[whatevergirl]

***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)

 

[benedictgal]

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 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.

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?

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.

 

[whatevergirl]

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.

YES–I AGREE THERE! I so wish everyone would, when presenting facts, present facts. I am guilty of it to, but I admit I’m lazy to find Scripture and links, but I should practice what I preach! Thanks b-gal. I will read the link shortly.

 

[Joyousguard]

Em_in_FL;3201295]We aren’t discussing an issue of doctrine…

Celibacy is a matter of doctrine in the catholic church for priests.

we all know that celibacy is a tradition and not a doctrinal requirement.

It is both actually. However, it wasn’t started that way in either regards.

Yes, history has allowed for married priests… and when Christ started His church many of His first bishops and popes were married.

Correct

Looking forward, however… tradition has led us to a majority of celibate priests. There are valid arguments for why this has happened. None of them are to the exclusion of married priests… but overall this tradition has prevailed.

That is part of the point I have made. Priests are called to be both celibate and married.

There are other non-doctrinal issues that have been guided by tradition. Tradition is a huge part of our faith and our church… not something that should be easily overlooked.

You are right, the tradition of married priests should not have been something that was overlooked in attemtping to replace it with a doctrinal standard. If we follow this through, one traditon was usurped but doctrine. You have made the very correct analyss of tradition being importan to the church but apparently it wa snot important enough inthe case of celibacy to replace it with doctrine. Can tradition be so easily moved aside?

 

[Em_in_FL]

Celibacy is a matter of doctrine in the catholic church for priests. It is both actually. However, it wasn’t started that way in either regards.
Correct
That is part of the point I have made. Priests are called to be both celibate and married.

You are right, the tradition of married priests should not have been something that was overlooked in attemtping to replace it with a doctrinal standard. If we follow this through, one traditon was usurped but doctrine. You have made the very correct analyss of tradition being importan to the church but apparently it wa snot important enough inthe case of celibacy to replace it with doctrine. Can tradition be so easily moved aside?

No… it’s NOT doctrine.

From the link posted above…

The first and most basic confusion is thinking of priestly celibacy as a dogma or doctrine—a central and irreformable part of the faith, believed by Catholics to come from Jesus and the apostles.

The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.

 

[THurifer2]

for believing that the earth is not the center of the universe, and other priesthood as married man?) Is this not the case at all anymore?

The earth is the center of the universe. All of creation evolves around the creation of the human inhabitant we call the image and likeness of God.

 

[THurifer2]

Celibacy is a matter of doctrine in the catholic church for priests. It is both actually. ?

Really? DId this happen while I was at lunch?

 

[pismopal]

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?

 

[THurifer2]

Can tradition be so easily moved aside?

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?

 

[whatevergirl]

The earth is the center of the universe. All of creation evolves around the creation of the human inhabitant we call the image and likeness of God.

Please show documentation to back this up. Thanks.

 

[Joyousguard]

You are comparing this situation to others that are entirely different. You appear to be advocating something to which the Church has already made a statement.

Furthermore, you may have discussed the issue of laicization, but, you have not given supporting documentation to back up your arguments in favor of a married priesthood, which, is, in fact, what you are trying to promote, only, you appear to be disgusing your views as fact.

Two things I am trying to show here:

1. The Catholic church has been full of dissent in regards to it’s teachings and many of these people are now in good standing with the church to say the least
2. The issues for the married priest hood are simple:

-Jesus clealry chose married men to be the first priests
-it was a tradition of the Church to have married priests for quite some time before celibacy became mandatory and doctrine usurped tradition
-celibacy was mandated as a control measure for married priests giving away church land to their families and the method used by the church to get these men to agree to celibacy was to throw them or their families in jail
-it is human nature to require human companionship. While many priests do have friends and fellow priests, most priest and those that have left their parishes often cite a lonliness in their lives. This in additon to a strong spiritual call to marriage has brought them to marriage
-married priests ar emuch better prepared through expereicne to deal with the all important issue of the familiy. While one doe snot need to be an astronaut to know something about space, one doe snot bring in an electrician to fix your plumbing. Married priests have a much btter understanding of the familiy by simple result of having experienced many of the same issues that not only trouble theri parishoners but society as well.
-if a priest is called to be married the Catholic Church allows this through laicization. The Catholic church admits that the priest was indeed called to be a priest and ordained validly but they merely state that his faculties have been removed. This is an attempt to get around a man being a priest and ordained at the same time. The attempt by the church to create some sort of fiction that allows for an ordained man to heed the call of God for marriage but at the same time essentially tries to remove a perfectly valid sacrament shows bad theology in an effort to stop a man from fullffilling the call from God to both. The Church has created laicization to ensure that a man called to the priesthood may then be allowed to marry as he is being called by God. This patchwork theology drastically effects and sets precedent for all the sacraments.
-Rome has changed the rules on married catholic priests already. protetstant priests who are already married who convert to catholicism are allowed to be ordained married catholic priests.
-the EatsernRite is in full communion with Rome. Eastern Priests are allowed to come over and be married catholic priests as well.

I’ll probably think of some more as well as expand upon any objections or questions you pose.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Please show documentation to back this up. Thanks.

(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?

 

[Em_in_FL]

-it was a tradition of the Church to have married priests for quite some time before celibacy became mandatory and doctrine usurped tradition

Still no doctrine…