priest who leave to marry

[Joyousguard]

whatevergirl;3204377
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))

Almost all married Catholic Priests, i’m trying not to genralize but I think it is a certainty, were both called to marriage and ordination. God calls men to be ordained and I believe none of us are in dispute over this. Part of the problems lies in the fact that the church allowing priests to be laicized almost brings into question of whetehr or not these men were called to ordination in the first place. This is a very precarious situation. If these men were not called to be priests then the Church is ordaining a lot of men not called to the priesthood which would raise serious questions about the formation process in the seminaries.

If a man was called to be a priest and now is called to marriage and the Catholic church accepts this they are left in quite a perdicatment. If they let him marry then they are advocating a married clergy. If they deny him to marry they are denying his call to marriage. The Church wishes to have it both ways. They are saying that the man was validly ordained and called to the priesthood but that he must be laicized in order to fullfill his call to marriage. The Church can not let the priest out of ordiantion by saying that his ordianation was invalid because these poese the serious problems of the fromation process in the seminaries and the ability for the Church to determine who is called to the priesthood and who really isn’t. The Church comes up with a way to try and reurn an ordained man to the state he was previous ordination so he can get married. The Church attamepts to avoid calling his ordination invalid but rather claims to revert it. The problem as I have mention is that this laicization is justified with very bad and destructive theology.

Many men are called to the priesthood and many of these men called to the priesthood are then called to marriage. I think it is God’s calls them to seminary and ordiantion but at the same time is working on setting up the circumstances for his future wife( a bit confusing but I think you know what I mean). The Church is painfully trying to work its way around the obvious fact that men are called to ordination and marriage at the same time and they try to work around this with laicization which is so poorly constructed.

Are these men who were called to ordiantion wrong to begin with? Then the Church is ordaining a whole lot of men not called to the priest hood. Are these men not realy called to marriage after ordination? Then the Church has a whole lot of ordained men who are irrationally feeling the call to arriage but correctly followed the call to ordiantion. Are these men called to both ordiantion and marriage? Absolutely. The call is the same as most priests will tell you. Only the Church is trying desperatly to stop this and hence we have laicization and all the lovely probelms that come with it.

 

[Joyousguard]

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

And you still think a valid sacarment can be reversed? Good luck with that one. Try unbaptizing someone because that is the theological equivalent of laicization.

 

[He_Man]

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:

I am in a rush, so I’ll have to look for links later, but think about it this way (google laicization, or go to newadvent.org).

If a Priest leaves without being laicized, and has sexual relations, he is then in a state of mortal sin. Same reason you or I would be if we were not married, which he could not be in that case.

It would be no different than someone who was sleeping with another person before haveing their marriage annulled.

Again, I am glad the process exists, because the Church thinks it is necessary, but I don’t get why no one has sympathy for married men who hear another calling and leave their family? I don’t condone that AT ALL, but don’t see why we are reserving our pity.

Especially in light of how desparately we need Priests these days.

 

[He_Man]

And you still think a valid sacarment can be reversed? Good luck with that one. Try unbaptizing someone because that is the theological equivalent of laicization.

I didn’t realize the Pope was a member here…

 

[benedictgal]

And you still think a valid sacarment can be reversed? Good luck with that one. Try unbaptizing someone because that is the theological equivalent of laicization.

Then, you don’t believe in the annulment process, either. Joyousguard, you’ve only given us your opinions and explanations based on your viewpoint, not the Church’s. Disguising what you understand and opine as fact is misleading people.

Furthermore, we aren’t talking about laicization, as Deacon Cameron said a few posts ago.

 

[Joyousguard]

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?

For the very fact that the priests are not leaving their vocation because a valid sacrament can not be invalidated. They are and will forever be priests. Many of the priests who wish to be married go through the laicization process out of obligation but that is the equivalent of me saying that your valid baptism is invalid. The understanding behind laicization can not exist I have stated the argument numerous times and still no one will try to refute it with any vigor. Laicization is based on illogical, irrational, contradictory theology that would destroy all understanding of the sacraments if it were true.

 

[benedictgal]

For the very fact that the priests are not leaving their vocation because a valid sacrament can not be invalidated. They are and will forever be priests. Many of the priests who wish to be married go through the laicization process out of obligation but that is the equivalent of me saying that your valid baptism is invalid. The understanding behind laicization can not exist I have stated the argument numerous times and still no one will try to refute it with any vigor. Laicization is based on illogical, irrational, contradictory theology that would destroy all understanding of the sacraments if it were true.

Again, this is your opinion. Are you a former priest who has gone through this process? Or, do you just have an axe to grind?

I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but, you do not seem to regard the Church as the competent authority and appear to make yourself more knowledgeable than Peter. This is incorrect and goes against what the Church teaches.

 

[whatevergirl]

I am in a rush, so I’ll have to look for links later, but think about it this way (google laicization, or go to newadvent.org).

If a Priest leaves without being laicized, and has sexual relations, he is then in a state of mortal sin. Same reason you or I would be if we were not married, which he could not be in that case.

It would be no different than someone who was sleeping with another person before haveing their marriage annulled.

Again, I am glad the process exists, because the Church thinks it is necessary, but I don’t get why no one has sympathy for married men who hear another calling and leave their family? I don’t condone that AT ALL, but don’t see why we are reserving our pity.

Especially in light of how desparately we need Priests these days.

Ah! Light bulb moment. Thank you–that helps me to see what you’re saying. But, is at risk if he is not in a sexual relationship with anyone? Regardless of vocational status, our souls are at risk when we are in mortal sin. I don’t liken leaving the priesthood, in and of itself as mortal sin–but if he chose to marry without going through a process, then he would not be in mortal sin, am I understanding right? Write back when you have more time–Grazie!

 

[Em_in_FL]

If a man was called to be a priest and now is called to marriage and the Catholic church accepts this they are left in quite a perdicatment. If they let him marry then they are advocating a married clergy. If they deny him to marry they are denying his call to marriage. The Church wishes to have it both ways. They are saying that the man was validly ordained and called to the priesthood but that he must be laicized in order to fullfill his call to marriage. The Church can not let the priest out of ordiantion by saying that his ordianation was invalid because these poese the serious problems of the fromation process in the seminaries and the ability for the Church to determine who is called to the priesthood and who really isn’t. The Church comes up with a way to try and reurn an ordained man to the state he was previous ordination so he can get married. The Church attamepts to avoid calling his ordination invalid but rather claims to revert it. The problem as I have mention is that this laicization is justified with very bad and destructive theology.

Many men are called to the priesthood and many of these men called to the priesthood are then called to marriage. I think it is God’s calls them to seminary and ordiantion but at the same time is working on setting up the circumstances for his future wife( a bit confusing but I think you know what I mean). The Church is painfully trying to work its way around the obvious fact that men are called to ordination and marriage at the same time and they try to work around this with laicization which is so poorly constructed.

Are these men who were called to ordiantion wrong to begin with? Then the Church is ordaining a whole lot of men not called to the priest hood. Are these men not realy called to marriage after ordination? Then the Church has a whole lot of ordained men who are irrationally feeling the call to arriage but correctly followed the call to ordiantion. Are these men called to both ordiantion and marriage? Absolutely. The call is the same as most priests will tell you. Only the Church is trying desperatly to stop this and hence we have laicization and all the lovely probelms that come with it.

You seem to leave out the option of the men who are called to the priesthood (meaning their ordination is valid and all clerical duties during that time are valid), but are then called to a non-clerical marital vocation.
There are many men who fall in this category… they aren’t TOLD to leave their clerical duties… they DESIRE to move on in the vocation of marriage without those clerical duties. Many aren’t bitter or upset over this… they are grateful and thankful.

Again… they are ALWAY priests… but then feel called to a non-clerical marital vocation.

Where are all the “lovely problems” that come with these types of laicizations?

 

[Joyousguard]

Em_in_FL;3204440]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.

A priest can not move from ordiantion to marriage with laicization as a vehicle because it can not exist. Your father is as much a priest now as he was after ordiantion.

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…

You would be suprised as the ability of many marrie dCatholic priest to do both.

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.

The process the church has is empty of anything but the desires of the Church authority. Laicization has no theological basis and would affect all other scaraments as well.

 

[Joyousguard]

benedictgal;3204543]Again, this is your opinion. Are you a former priest who has gone through this process? Or, do you just have an axe to grind?

I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but, you do not seem to regard the Church as the competent authority and appear to make yourself more knowledgeable than Peter. This is incorrect and goes against what the Church teaches.

You can keep saying the “Church says so” all you want instead of looking at the theology behind laicization. The Church doesn’t want to discuss it either and simply pretends it does not exist.

I doubt very much if aperson with an “axe” to grind would be trying to improve Church theology rather than destroy it.

 

[Em_in_FL]

So what you’re saying is that it’s OKAY for a priest to also desire the vocation of marriage… but that he must maintain BOTH duties.

What if that is not possible?
What if the requirements of the combination of vocations cause him to spin into sinful situations (sins of negligence or omission, for example)?
Would Christ Himself not relieve that man of his clerical duties to help avoid those sinful situations?

Of course… the man is ALWAYS a priest… but simply removed of his clerical duties.

 

[Joyousguard]

Then, you don’t believe in the annulment process, either. Joyousguard, you’ve only given us your opinions and explanations based on your viewpoint, not the Church’s. Disguising what you understand and opine as fact is misleading people.

Furthermore, we aren’t talking about laicization, as Deacon Cameron said a few posts ago.

Anullment is not the same thing as laicization and it is a huge difference. An anullment says that a marriage was never valid to begin with. A laicization reverses a valid sacrament.

And laicization has much to do with it as I posted to Whatevergirl, you simply try to avoid the argument because it can not be won on the side you have chosen to support

 

[Em_in_FL]

A laicization reverses a valid sacrament.

No… it just removes him of clerical duties.
Please refer to the Canon…

Can. 290 Once validly received, sacred ordination never becomes invalid. A cleric, nevertheless, loses the clerical state:

It would be easier if you looked up the facts first.

 

[Joyousguard]

I didn’t realize the Pope was a member here…

So as long as the Church says it true it must be true? Yet again , we have seen that the church can and has been wrong. We have also seen that unless the Pope speaks ex cathedra on this point that it can be wrong and can be disputed.

 

[Joyousguard]

Em_in_FL;3204574]You seem to leave out the option of the men who are called to the priesthood (meaning their ordination is valid and all clerical duties during that time are valid), but are then called to a non-clerical marital vocation.
There are many men who fall in this category… they aren’t TOLD to leave their clerical duties… they DESIRE to move on in the vocation of marriage without those clerical duties. Many aren’t bitter or upset over this… they are grateful and thankful.

Soon as your “desires” find a way to unbaptize yourself let me know.

Again… they are ALWAY priests… but then feel called to a non-clerical marital vocation.

I wonder if I could rescind my conformation because I don’t want to live as an adult meber of the Church and have the gifts of the Holy Spirit? There are many things in this world that we have no control over no matter whatwe might “desire”

Where are all the “lovely problems” that come with these types of laicizations?

I’m getting the feeling that people are either simply ignoring the argument I have put forth about laicization or simply trying to tease me.

read my posts on laicization particularly at the beginning of this thread. If it exists married priests are the least of the worries the Catholic church should have.

 

[benedictgal]

So as long as the Church says it true it must be true? Yet again , we have seen that the church can and has been wrong. We have also seen that unless the Pope speaks ex cathedra on this point that it can be wrong and can be disputed.

Are you saying that you are the greater authority over the Church? Sorry, but I believe that this is your pride talking. Remember, it wasn’t so much the eating of the forbidden fruit that got Adam and Eve in trouble, it was their pride because they wanted to be like God.

Inasmuch as the Pope has not ruled this ex cathedra (yet), you do seem to show a lack of respect to his authority on the matter. The disputes that you cited in your earlier posts are entirely different from the claim that you are making now. As I said earlier, rather than being in line with St. Catherine of Sienna, as you claim, you’re pretty much in league with King Henry VIII. He didn’t like the Church’s teaching on marriage, so, he founded his own church, rather than humbly accept the teaching of the Holy See. Yours is the same song, but a different verse.

So far, all you have presented is your own personal opinion, which I repeat, contradicts what the Church has held. Inasmuch as you have a right to your opinion, you do a disservice by representing it as fact.

 

[Joyousguard]

Em_in_FL;3204615]So what you’re saying is that it’s OKAY for a priest to also desire the vocation of marriage… but that he must maintain BOTH duties.

Unless you can invalidate a valid sacrament.

What if that is not possible?
What if the requirements of the combination of vocations cause him to spin into sinful situations (sins of negligence or omission, for example)?
Would Christ Himself not relieve that man of his clerical duties to help avoid those sinful situations?

Although you are suggesting possible problems you should do well to remeber that the Church had married clergy for a very long time and the Eastern Rite has married clergy as well. The Church has made it work and the Eatsern Rite makes it work. In addition, many married Catholic priests make it work as well as those Catholic priests who were married protestant ministes who converted. They seem to make it work

Of course… the man is ALWAYS a priest… but simply removed of his clerical duties.

He has been removed from the parish but they have no authority to remove his ability to validly administer the sacraments. That is far beyond the Churches power or authority.

 

[Joyousguard]

Em_in_FL;3204623]No… it just removes him of clerical duties.
Please refer to the Canon…

It would be easier if you looked up the facts first.

This is the problema nd it doe snot help for you to quote canon law because the theology is incapable of being correct and it does not do well to make a judgement that I do not have the facts. I have looked at the facts and the argument I have put forth is based on th fallacy of those facts.

It would also still behoove you to look at the painstaking argument that I put forth earlier in this thread instead of quoting canon law which gives an explaination that CAN NOT POSSIBLEY EXIST.

 

[Joyousguard]

benedictgal;3204657]Are you saying that you are the greater authority over the Church?

If you are going to put words into my mouth or thoughts into my head at least make it a really good novel so I can use the money to retire early.

Sorry, but I believe that this is your pride talking. Remember, it wasn’t so much the eating of the forbidden fruit that got Adam and Eve in trouble, it was their pride because they wanted to be like God.

Dissent is prideful??? Do you really want to go down that path?

Inasmuch as the Pope has not ruled this ex cathedra (yet), you do seem to show a lack of respect to his authority on the matter.

What I show is a respect for good theology as opposed to bad theology that breeds decisons from authority.

The disputes that you cited in your earlier posts are entirely different from the claim that you are making now.

Nothing has changed inthe least with what I have said. I have mainataine my point consistentlyt through out this thread and have attempted to answer andy ooffshoot points as they come up.

As I said earlier, rather than being in line with St. Catherine of Sienna, as you claim, you’re pretty much in league with King Henry VIII.

This is an illogical statement. Dissent has always been a factor of the church and dissent by its very nature is directed towards the Authority of the Church. There is a huge difference between dissent and succesion. But that would just be me seeing the obvious.

He didn’t like the Church’s teaching on marriage, so, he founded his own church, rather than humbly accept the teaching of the Holy See. Yours is the same song, but a different verse.

So everyone who has dissented from the Catholic church falls into this category? I disagree with the church as many people have in the past but I have no intention whatsoever to leave it. Your remarks are very insulting and seem to lack any understanding on the differences between the two. It seems that you would like to make it easier for yourself to lump me with Henry and Luthor instead of debate the issues. i wouldn’t want to debate on the losng side either.

So far, all you have presented is your own personal opinion, which I repeat, contradicts what the Church has held. Inasmuch as you have a right to your opinion, you do a disservice by representing it as fact.

What i Have preseented is very concise theology in a very logical and rational approach that you counter with Church teaching which is what my objection is based on in the first place. What it comes down to is that you refuse to look at the argument and continue to cite the very flawed teachings called into question. I am glad you have convinced yourself but it would help if you actually responded to issues like laicization without using the flawed cannon law that the objection is based on. Its like trying to defend yourself with a broken sword all the while denying the sword is indeed broken.