priest who leave to marry

[otjm]

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?

Actually, they could get married 80 years ago if they were Eastern rite. And they could be rodained if they were married some time after Vatican 2 when the Church started ordaining married men who had been Protestant clergy.

Considering the fact that neither you nor I have any idea how many men would apply to seminaries if the Church allowed Roman rite married men to be ordained, we have no idea how much impact it would make. I would not propose it as a cure to the issue of the shortage of vocations. The shortage of vocations is a multi-faceted issue. It would, however, proivide a source of heterosexual men for the priesthood; if people like Mr. Davies or Mr. Lukaidis are to be believed, at least some seminaries seem to have been swamped by homosexuals.

 

[whatevergirl]

So, is the Church is right or wrong to have changed its stance on disallowing married men to be ordained? I think in some ways it would increase the priesthood numbers, but at what other risk? There lies the rub. I think the priesthood is such a holy vocation because it is a vocation like no other. Marriage is a special vocation, too, but in a marriage–one is focused on the marriage. If a priest had to divide his time between home and church–the vocation would lose its sacredness, in my opinion.

But, it is important to know the history of this, at least I think it is.

 

[otjm]

Otjm, you write that you were in the seminary. Did you follow through and become a priest or did you leave at some point? {/QUOTE]I left after the first two years of college seminary.
benedictgal;3202923:

Furthermore, inasmuch as we are all well aware of the Eastern Rite Traditions, this discussion concerns the Latin Rite.

Well, yes and no; we are off topic and I am as guilty as anyone. However, all too many people discuss the issue of married clergy in a vacuum, as if the Eastern rites do not exist, or as if they were not in union with Rome and just as Catholic as the Roman rite. It aggravates me to no end to see references to the “Roman Catholic Church” as if such a thing existed; tht is to use the English derisive term for the Roman rite, started, if I remember my history correctly, by Henry the 8th. There is ony the Catholic Church; there is the Roman rite within it. Just because it is the largest rite does not give its title - Roman - to the whole Church.

Celibacy is a calling; however, it is united to the priesthood in the Latin Rite. You can’t have your cake and eat it too if you plan on being a priest in the Latin Rite.

You can, if you are a convert minister. Taht is where I have real problems with Rome; if they are opening the door to converts, then I think they should open the door to cradle Catholics. I don’t thfink there would be a flood. I do think there would be applications, which would need to be reviewed just as non-married applicants are, and just as married applicants for the permanent diaconite are. And I thin the Church would be the richer for it. I don’t think it would be a threat to celibacy; ceilbacy is now mandatory; what does one waay aobut those who would choose the priesthood and celibacy, and what would that say about celibacy? I think it would add more value to the celibacy of those who chose that path freely.

Pope Paul VI did not ignore history when he wrote his encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus which says, in part:

I do not disagree with the value of celibacy; but often there is a presumption by those rushing to defend it that any possiblity of a married priesthood is somehow linked with a devaluation of celibacy, or an attempt to do away with it. I see it differently. I see priesthood as distinct from either marriage or celibacy. I also see married clergy giving true value to celibacy, and celibacy giving true value to marriage. Both can be a witness to their own vocation and to the other.

I have read the encyclical. I ahve no problem at all, whatsoever, with a celibate clergy. I also have no problem whatsoever with a married clergy; my archdiocese has, as far as I know, the only Presbyterian minister who was later ordained in the Catholic Church; his wife is a neat lady and he is an awesome priest. And if it is good enough for Father Slider Steuernol, then I fail to see why it would not be good enough for someone raised Catholic and married.

And no, I am not applying. I understand the Church’s emphasis on celibacy as a witness to Christ; however, it is not the only witness, as seen by the Eastern rites, and the Western rite with its married clergy.

 

[otjm]

So, is the Church is right or wrong to have changed its stance on disallowing married men to be ordained? I think in some ways it would increase the priesthood numbers, but at what other risk? There lies the rub. I think the priesthood is such a holy vocation because it is a vocation like no other. Marriage is a special vocation, too, but in a marriage–one is focused on the marriage. If a priest had to divide his time between home and church–the vocation would lose its sacredness, in my opinion.

But, it is important to know the history of this, at least I think it is.

I feel like I am repeating myself. Is there a risk in ordaining someone who is married? Of course. But let’s not stop there; is there a risk in ordaining someone who has SSA? Of courser; the Church has already spoken on it; and I have been around long enough to know that we have good and holy priests who suffer from SSA; we have priests who have SSA whom we might agree might not be so holy; and I am not so naive as to think that the rule put forth is going to solve that issue.

There is also a risk in ordaining a heterosexul man who is not married; after all, the topic is about laicization of those, who more often than not seem to be applying for laicization in order to marry It might be your opinion that a married man who became a priest while married would cause the vocation to lose some of its sacredness; I would suggest that is because you have not been exposed to and around married clergy. I am sure you do not mean it as such, but that is a slap in the face to each and every one of the Eastern rite priests who are married, and each and every one of the Roman rite priests who converted and were ordained while married. That is putting the issue on feelings, not facts (and I presume you have never been presented witht he facts - that is, you have never met a married priest). Feelings change.

I have been around married priests; and the ones I know are just as holy as a whole bunch I know who are celibate. Having known 4 priests personally who have been accused of sexual abuse, I just might give the edge to the married ones.

Too often we make decisions based only on what we have experienced, and make presumptions about that which we have not experienced. That has a tendency to lead to a closed mind.

 

[Joyousguard]

Let’s get the facts right.

In 1965 there were 35,925 diocesan and 22707 order priests.

In 2006 there were 28299 diocesan (or about 79% as many as in '65) and 13495 order priests (or about 59.5%). The orders have suffered the greates lowering of numbers. The surprising numbers are that the diocesan numbers have gone down gradually, and this appears to be more about fewer men coming into the priesthood to balance retirements than it does about how many left for wahtever reason.

As of 2006, there were 3,306 parishes without a priest. many of those have a priest saying Mass each Sunday, but not residing in the parish.

The above information is from CARA, which does Catholic research.

Thank you for the accurate statistics but I’m not sure if you were trying to help me prove my point. My statistics do make a better picture then what you have posted though

 

[Joyousguard]

They are quite irrelevant and need not be broached at all.

It is simply that the Church provides for laicization and sets forth certain effects that result from it which prevent the laicized priest from validly administering certain sacraments, although it also provides for limited exceptions. The Church asserts that it has the authority to do so clearly in its theology and canon law.

You, as far I understand your position, do not believe the Church has the authority to do this, and consequently deny those effects.

keep following that logic through. I’ll give you a hint. Apply the precedent to another sacrament.

You argue by what the Church says but disregard the theology. Look at the theological understanding of what the church says and follow it through to its conclusion. if you can’t i’ll just cut and paste what i have previously posted and walk you through it step by step.

 

[THurifer2]

if people like Mr. Davies or Mr. Lukaidis are to be believed, at least some seminaries seem to have been swamped by homosexuals.

You can add Mr. Rose to that list.

I think some live in a bubble when it comes to the Catholic faith. People who live in pockets of “orthodoxy” don’t realize how far the faith has fallen. My childhood parish has just a tiny remnant of parishoners. …all while the actual population of the town has grown by 20%. My point is the priest shortage is due to the outright secularization of society and the animosity towards religion.

 

[THurifer2]

keep following that logic through. I’ll give you a hint. Apply the precedent to another sacrament.

You argue by what the Church says but disregard the theology. Look at the theological understanding of what the church says and follow it through to its conclusion. if you can’t i’ll just cut and paste what i have previously posted and walk you through it step by step.

Yes or no are you a member of CORPUS?

FWIW one would think that movement would be on life support.

 

[Joyousguard]

Yes or no are you a member of CORPUS?

FWIW one would think that movement would be on life support.

First and foremost I fail to see why a relationship with corpus should even be considered in this matter as to what I have posted. The only mention of CORPUS was from another poster on this thread. So I would kindly thank you if you would stop assuming things about persons based on hearsay and other people’s opinions. What you are trying to do is attach my posts to some organization that many people on here including yourself seem to dislike. Is this what the Catholic Church has become? If anyone expresses dissent they are a “heretic” or a member of an organization with an agenda and thus should be dismissed as one of those people.

“If you can’t attack a person’s argument, attack their character” Thank you Cicero once again.

 

[benedictgal]

keep following that logic through. I’ll give you a hint. Apply the precedent to another sacrament.

You argue by what the Church says but disregard the theology. Look at the theological understanding of what the church says and follow it through to its conclusion. if you can’t i’ll just cut and paste what i have previously posted and walk you through it step by step.

Whose logic: yours or the Church’s? You still have not provided any authoritative Church documentation to support your point. It seems as though you are speaking from both sides of your mouth. You say that you are Catholic and have been educated in Catholic schools, but, you are taking a position (and strongly advocating it) that is 180-degrees to what the Latin Rite maintains.

Perhaps you have not read the writings of Paul VI, John Paul II and the former Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope).

Furthermore, what is CARA and are they an a sanctioned Church group? Are they a legitimate authority in line with the Holy See?

One thing is to engage in legitimate document warfare. Another, however, is to disguise your own opinion as fact without providing official Church teaching.

 

[He_Man]

So, is the Church is right or wrong to have changed its stance on disallowing married men to be ordained? I think in some ways it would increase the priesthood numbers, but at what other risk? There lies the rub. I think the priesthood is such a holy vocation because it is a vocation like no other. Marriage is a special vocation, too, but in a marriage–one is focused on the marriage. If a priest had to divide his time between home and church–the vocation would lose its sacredness, in my opinion.

But, it is important to know the history of this, at least I think it is.

The problem is, there is no, nor will there ever be any, proof that dropping celibacy as a discipline would ever do anything.

There are MANY reasons Priests left the priesthood since the sixties - weak catechisis, poor leadership, homosexual infestation in seminaries, lax societal standards, abuses of Vatican II; the list goes on and on.

Unless one can get honest answers from EVERY PERSON that ever left the Priesthood, or considered becoming a Priest and decided not to, discussing it as “proof” is folly.

All we have now is anecdotal evidence that says “so and so once considered becoming a Priest, but didn’t because …”, which is a poor way to make an argument. That’s why, lucky for us, we have a hierarchy that can make the best policy for us. Otherwise, we become splintered and fractured. We DO NOT have the whole picture, though for some reason, humans think they do.

The problem is **there is no causal proof to link the institution of celibacy with the drop in number of Priests. **That would be the only way to connect the two, statsitically, and it can’t be done.

The arguments in here sound no different than the arguments people make to justify sex before marriage, cohabitation, contraception - the list goes on and on. But all pragmatic and secular reasons aside, the bottom line is “God says no.” End of story. He has His reasons, even if certain people don’t choose to agree.

Too often, those who oppose a Church practice, whether out of genuine concern, or because they have some agenda, do so by trying to connect things that are simply unconnected. This is the case with this topic.

It ultimately doesn’t matter what we think, as we do not make policy in the Church; ours is only to obey. I don’t even see it as a healthy exercise; it is akin to the Apostles doubting Jesus and arguing behind his back about things He said. And it was this doubt that always led to trouble (Peter in the boat, doubting Thomas, etc.)

Not to mention, it raises concerns and places doubts in people’s minds about that which they should have complete faith. That doubt and mistrust is one fo the tools of Satan. All he wants to do is plant a seed, and given how many people come to this site and read without ever making themselves known, who knows the effect this sort of thing can have on someone.

 

[Joyousguard]

I’ll tell you, I almost feel like crying over what I have seen on this issue. A total lack of individual thought on the part of many catholics and simple adherence to church disciplines and dogma that were based on decisions by the Church to do the wrong thing. Church History has been neatly glossed over and grave misconduct has been attempted to be struck from history.

I don’t believe that people on this thread quite understand how serious the issue of liacization is. The Catholic Church has tried to allow those ordained who are called to marriage a means to accept that call. Even the Church has conceded that the call of a priest to marriage should be headed or allowed. Bu the Church in their infinite wisdom can not bare the idea of a married clergy, a man who heads the call to ordination and heads the call to marriage, so they create this fiction of laicization to get around the very core issue that priests have been called to marriage after ordination. The Church has admitted the call to marriage may be right and acceptable but they will not stand for those ordained men seeking marriage to retain their clerical status. The create this fallacial understanding that a ordained man can only be called to marriage if his faculties are removed and he is essentially returned to a state similiar to the one previous of his ordination.

The absurd theological understanding the Church has put forth with laicization not only sets the understanding that indeed a valid sacrament can be modified, nullified or invalidated bu that this understanding may be carried over to any sacrament of their choosing. The concept of laicization is so poorly contrived that it leaves all the divinely given sacraments in jeopardy with this poorly argued theological understanding brought to its logical fullfillment. A valid scarament becomes nothing more than farce that can been “invalidated” by the power the Church has given itself to reverse perfectly valid sacraments to begin with. Is the Catholic church going to create new canons to reverse validity of baptism or the Eucharist? The permenace of Baptism and the transubstantiation of the Eucharist are now subject to the authority of the Church? If we dissent with the Church do they have the authority to revoke the validity of my valid baptism? Do they have the authority to remove the validity of my valid confession? They apaprently have the right to retrograde the validity of a valid ordiantion and remove that priests faculties.

This theological understanding of laicization is an attempt in Rome to control the call of God for men of the priesthood to marry. Rome could never accept that and thus had to fashion some sort of way to ensure that a man who was once ordained could marry and now this poor excuse for theology could burn through each and every understanding we have of the validity of the sacraments as well as the permenance, in manner far more destructive then any raging inferno. But I guess as many on this forum believe, the Church has the power to change what God Himself has set down and defend it in any manner that they see fit no matter how destructive and contrary their reasoning is to proper theological understanding and divine precedent. Where does this arrogance stop? Can the Church write a Canon that gives it the authority to remove a Gospel from the Bible? That is not more absurd then the Church giving itself authority to reverse a valid scarament. But I guess blind obedience carries the day. Thank God the Church never experienced dissent from men such as Aquinas or Savarnola or Erasmus. The Church authority was always right, is always right and will be always right. And the dissent and persuction by many now considered to be saints or doctors of the Church will be glossed over and striken from the record of history.

 

[He_Man]

I’ll tell you, I almost feel like crying over what I have seen on this issue. A total lack of individual thought on the part of many catholics and simple adherence to church disciplines and dogma that were based on decisions by the Church to do the wrong thing. Church History has been neatly glossed over and grave misconduct has been attempted to be struck from history.

I don’t believe that people on this thread quite understand how serious the issue of liacization is. The Catholic Church has tried to allow those ordained who are called to marriage a means to accept that call. Even the Church has conceded that the call of a priest to marriage should be headed or allowed. Bu the Church in their infinite wisdom can not bare the idea of a married clergy, a man who heads the call to ordination and heads the call to marriage, so they create this fiction of laicization to get around the very core issue that priests have been called to marriage after ordination. The Church has admitted the call to marriage may be right and acceptable but they will not stand for those ordained men seeking marriage to retain their clerical status. The create this fallacial understanding that a ordained man can only be called to marriage if his faculties are removed and he is essentially returned to a state similiar to the one previous of his ordination.

The absurd theological understanding the Church has put forth with laicization not only sets the understanding that indeed a valid sacrament can be modified, nullified or invalidated bu that this understanding may be carried over to any sacrament of their choosing. The concept of laicization is so poorly contrived that it leaves all the divinely given sacraments in jeopardy with this poorly argued theological understanding brought to its logical fullfillment. A valid scarament becomes nothing more than farce that can been “invalidated” by the power the Church has given itself to reverse perfectly valid sacraments to begin with. Is the Catholic church going to create new canons to reverse validity of baptism or the Eucharist? The permenace of Baptism and the transubstantiation of the Eucharist are now subject to the authority of the Church? If we dissent with the Church do they have the authority to revoke the validity of my valid baptism? Do they have the authority to remove the validity of my valid confession? They apaprently have the right to retrograde the validity of a valid ordiantion and remove that priests faculties.

This theological understanding of laicization is an attempt in Rome to control the call of God for men of the priesthood to marry. Rome could never accept that and thus had to fashion some sort of way to ensure that a man who was once ordained could marry and now this poor excuse for theology could burn through each and every understanding we have of the validity of the sacraments as well as the permenance, in manner far more destructive then any raging inferno. But I guess as many on this forum believe, the Church has the power to change what God Himself has set down and defend it in any manner that they see fit no matter how destructive and contrary their reasoning is to proper theological understanding and divine precedent. Where does this arrogance stop? Can the Church write a Canon that gives it the authority to remove a Gospel from the Bible? That is not more absurd then the Church giving itself authority to reverse a valid scarament. But I guess blind obedience carries the day. Thank God the Church never experienced dissent from men such as Aquinas or Savarnola or Erasmus. The Church authority was always right, is always right and will be always right. And the dissent and persuction by many now considered to be saints or doctors of the Church will be glossed over and striken from the record of history.

You make it sound as though laicization is simply “Priests decides he wants a family, and gets laicized.” it is not that simple, and the statistics of successfull laicizations bear that out. You are treating it more like a divorce, when it is more akin to an anullment. It does not happen often. There is no carte blanche from the Vatican for Priests who want to leave. TIn theory, the call to the Priesthood needs to be nullified with reasons showing it was entered under false pretenses, not simply cast away. it is simply not as easy as you make it out to be, and for good reason.

 

[whatevergirl]

You make it sound as though laicization is simply “Priests decides he wants a family, and gets laicized.” it is not that simple, and the statistics of successfull laicizations bear that out. You are treating it more like a divorce, when it is more akin to an anullment. It does not happen often. There is no carte blanche from the Vatican for Priests who want to leave. TIn theory, the call to the Priesthood needs to be nullified with reasons showing it was entered under false pretenses, not simply cast away. it is simply not as easy as you make it out to be, and for good reason.

Hi heman–suppose false pretense cannot be detected in a certain priest? I’m trying to learn what happens if a priest wishes to leave the priesthood, because he let’s say for example–falls in love with a female parishioner? If he chooses to leave the priesthood, will his entire time as a priest be null?

 

[Joyousguard]

benedictgal;3204182]Whose logic: yours or the Church’s?

If you are asking who’s logic it might be safe to say that you might want to try an easier forum to get you rfeet wet before you dive into somethin like this.

You still have not provided any authoritative Church documentation to support your point.

I was talking with many Muslims on another thread. The intersting thing about their belief in the validity of mohhamed and the Koran is the circular reasoning that the Koran is a miracle of itself and that the Kora proves that Mohhamed is a prohphet from God. It is interesting to note that the defense of a celibate priesthood is defended in the canons and many Hurch teachings and a matter of a tradition now. But celibacy was not a traditon when it was mandated and in fact a marrie dclergy was th tradition. In addition the canon laws are in direct contradiction to the example and deliberate choosing of marrie dmen by christ to start His priesthood. And you want to defend celibacy by canon law when Christ called married men to be his preists and start his church. Pardon me if I don’t jump on the “Rome is always right” boat.

It seems as though you are speaking from both sides of your mouth. You say that you are Catholic and have been educated in Catholic schools, but, you are taking a position (and strongly advocating it) that is 180-degrees to what the Latin Rite maintains.

This assumption comes from the belief that a celibate clergy was the norm always and this is 100% not true. What I am taking a stance against is the fact that Rome saw fit to change what Christ Himself started and even go against the tradition that we hold so dear in the Church. Are we to say that it doe snot matter what Christ did but that the Church may change anything Christ did as the Church sees fit? The Latin Rite broke from traditon of a married clergy and the precedent set by Christ Himself not the other way around.

Perhaps you have not read the writings of Paul VI, John Paul II and the former Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope).

I have.

Furthermore, what is CARA and are they an a sanctioned Church group? Are they a legitimate authority in line with the Holy See?

It was not mentione din my post.

One thing is to engage in legitimate document warfare. Another, however, is to disguise your own opinion as fact without providing official Church teaching.

So the Bible is not legitemate? When we see that Christ called married men to the priesthood and that this becomes wrong because the Church now says so. Is that how little the actions of Christ mean to us? That we cast them aside when they become to inconvienent? What you and Rome are advocating is the right of the Church to change any teaching of Christ as they see fit. That is what this boils down to. Not that Rome would change all the teachings, but that Rome can and Rome has. Next time maybe Jesus should just send us a letter instead of coming all the way down here.

You keep refering to canon law and church teachings but they are clearly in contrast to the Bible and the very actions of Christ. The Church does have authority but no one and I mean no one has the authority to change what Christ Himself has set.

 

[whatevergirl]

*Joyousguard posts—>I don’t believe that people on this thread quite understand how serious the issue of liacization is. The Catholic Church has tried to allow those ordained who are called to marriage a means to accept that call. Even the Church has conceded that the call of a priest to marriage should be headed or allowed. Bu the Church in their infinite wisdom can not bare the idea of a married clergy, a man who heads the call to ordination and heads the call to marriage, ***so they create this fiction of laicization to get around the very core issue that priests have been called to marriage after ordination. ****The Church has admitted the call to marriage may be right and acceptable but they will not stand for those ordained men seeking marriage to retain their clerical status. The create this fallacial understanding that a ordained man can only be called to marriage if his faculties are removed and he is essentially returned to a state similiar to the one previous of his ordination.

Good morning, Joyousguard–first, don’t cry! We are all trying to understand one another, is all.

Can you explain what you mean in the area I bolded above? Thank you! ((hugs))

 

[He_Man]

*Joyousguard posts—>I don’t believe that people on this thread quite understand how serious the issue of liacization is. The Catholic Church has tried to allow those ordained who are called to marriage a means to accept that call. Even the Church has conceded that the call of a priest to marriage should be headed or allowed. Bu the Church in their infinite wisdom can not bare the idea of a married clergy, a man who heads the call to ordination and heads the call to marriage, ***so they create this fiction of laicization to get around the very core issue that priests have been called to marriage after ordination. ****The Church has admitted the call to marriage may be right and acceptable but they will not stand for those ordained men seeking marriage to retain their clerical status. The create this fallacial understanding that a ordained man can only be called to marriage if his faculties are removed and he is essentially returned to a state similiar to the one previous of his ordination.

Good morning, Joyousguard–first, don’t cry! We are all trying to understand one another, is all.

Can you explain what you mean in the area I bolded above? Thank you! ((hugs))

He presumes marriage is the only reason for laicization, which is not the case.

 

[He_Man]

Hi heman–suppose false pretense cannot be detected in a certain priest? I’m trying to learn what happens if a priest wishes to leave the priesthood, because he let’s say for example–falls in love with a female parishioner? If he chooses to leave the priesthood, will his entire time as a priest be null?

It depends on Rome. It will not invalidate the past acts to my knowledge (absolutions, transubstatiations, etc.) but will allow them to leave without fear of losing their soul. But there have been many Priests whose request has been denied. So their choice is fulfill their vows, or risk the loss of their soul.

Again, I don’t understand why we don’t show as much sympathy to men who want to leave their wives, or women who abandon their children. Can someone explain that to me?

 

[Em_in_FL]

I see laicization very differently.
I see it as a much deeper understanding of the sacrament of marriage… a vehicle to allow men to move from one vocation to another… a path that respects both vocations for the level of service that each calls men into.

From my own personal experience… I could not imagine having my father torn between two vocations. I don’t think either would have been done to it’s fullest… something would lack.
I don’t think this would be fair to the parish community, to his wife, or to his children.
Both vocations are extremely demanding, and the Church recognizes this. I’m very thankful for the laicization process…

My dad will always be a priest… that’s an indelible mark on his soul. But he chose to change vocations. The Church has a beautiful process for this that allowed him to fully embrace his vocation of marriage.

 

[whatevergirl]

It depends on Rome. It will not invalidate the past acts to my knowledge (absolutions, transubstatiations, etc.) but will allow them to leave without fear of losing their soul. But there have been many Priests whose request has been denied. So their choice is fulfill their vows, or risk the loss of their soul.

Again, I don’t understand why we don’t show as much sympathy to men who want to leave their wives, or women who abandon their children. Can someone explain that to me?

Really! I did not know this at all–a priest can be denied leaving? If he chooses to, he can risk losing salvation? Why? Is there anything in writing from the RCC that spells this out, that you can post? (link?)

Why can leaving a vocation to the priesthood be grounds for losing one’s soul? Jesus died for us all–we cannot earn heaven.

I’m so confused on this issue. :crying: