Priestly State of Life More Blessed?

[JReducation]

Where and how is this dogma taught? I’ve never heard that before. Thank you.

It was inherited from scripture and from the early Father. So, it never needed a formal proclamation. It is something that the Church has believed and makes reference to in all her writings on religious life.

Pope John Paul II , Vita Consecrata, no. 32“As a way of showing forth the Church’s holiness, it is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ’s own way of life, has an objective superiority.

Pope John Paul reaffirms what has been said in the past.

Pope Pius XII, Sacra Virginitas, no. 32“This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as we have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent, and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church."

Pope Pius XII recalls the recognition of the dogma by the Council of Trent. This decree was speaking about religious life as having been revealed by Christ himself. Therefore, religious life is found in revelation.

Council of Trent
“If anyone saith that the marriage state is to be preferred before the state of virginity, let him be anathema.” …] "writing to the Corinthians, [Paul] says: I would that all men were even as myself; that is, that all embrace the virtue of continence…A life of continence is to be desired by all.” (cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent, pg. 225)

If one does not believe that the religious life is preferable to the married life, then one is to be excommunicated.

Saint Cyprian of Carthage, A.D. 258 †
“But chastity maintains the first rank in virgins, the second in those who are continent (celibate), the third in the case of wedlock.” …] "While laws are prescribed to matrons … virginity and continency are beyond all law; there is nothing in the laws of matrimony which pertains to virginity; for by its loftiness it transcends them all."

The virgins are both male and female religious. Celibates are secular or diocesan priests and in third place are married persons. This was a teaching of the early Church which is still in effect today.

Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, A.D. 373 †
"Now if a man choose the way of the world, namely marriage, he is not indeed to blame; yet he will not receive such great gifts as the other. For he will receive, since he too brings forth fruit, namely thirtyfold. But if a man embraces the holy and unearthly way, even though as compared with the former it be rugged and hard to accomplish, nonetheless it has the more wonderful gifts: for it grows the perfect fruit, namely a hundredfold."

St. Athanasius establishes that marriage has its graces, but not as many as the religious life.

As we can see, the Church has believed in the superiority of religious life, even over the priesthood since its early days, beginning with Christ, St. Paul and the Church Fathers. The Council of Trent labeled it a dogma. It was not declared a dogma, because it was part of the Church since its foudation, as was the Eucharist. You can’t declare a dogma that is already familiar to the Church. You can only acknowledge it. This is what Trent and all other councils have done.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Nope. Sorry if I mis-stated something.

So the Church did not make a mistake in the numerous instances I know of where a person was ordained and then later removed from the priesthood due to actions obviously requiring removal? Some of which, at least, were clearly concerns prior to ordination and happened within the first year of being ordained?

No. The ordination was not a mistake. The ordination is a mistake only if it is invalid. Those priests who lost their clerical state for sexual abuse and other reasons, are still priests of the Catholic Church. Their ordination is valid and they have all the rights and obligations of any other priest. Their obligatioins are suspended, not taken away. Their rights are suspended, not taken away. The Church does not have the power or the authority to undo an ordinatiion. Those priests who are in prison for sexaul abuse and other crimes, remain priests for all eternity. The Church believes that she never makes mistakes when ordaining. Those who are ordained were meant to be ordained. However, this does not mean that the person is perfect. The job now is to determine who should be ordained. The Church has the authority to deny ordination to any, even if they are called by Christ. That comes with her authority to bind and loosen. Christ gives her this authority and he respects and supports her choices, as a good spouse does with his wife.

Good. They should be. Unfortunately, as we’ve learned over the past few years, the Church been somewhat complicit in one scandalous way to easily get out of them. Sadly.

Getting a dispensation from either religious vows or the priestly vow of celibacy should not be a cause of scandal. The Church has the authority to do this. Therefore, nothing is wrong in doing it. There is no complicity here. This is a case of the Church exercising her authority as she wishes. The problem is not with the Church or the priest or religious who asks for a dispensation and receives it. The problem is the laity. The laity wants to make rules for the Church that are not in the books and that it has no authority to make. The laity would like to see the Church deny the requests. But the laity has not right to express this opinion. First, it is not their promise or their vow. Second, the laity does not have jurisdiction in the matter, because the laity was not who received the promise or the vows in the first place. It was the Church. Therefore, the hierarchy who receives the promise and the vows, also has the authority to dispense with the obligation. No one should be scandalized because the Church exercises her maternal authority. We have to stop this nonsense of calling it a scandal every time the Church acts like a compassionate mother. That is her role. As spouse to Jesus Christ, she enjoys the power of a mother and the shares in some of the powers of her spouse.

I hope this can help someone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

The Church does not have the power or the authority to undo an ordinatiion.

Maybe semantics, but I think the Church does have the right to “undo” ordination, and imho it seems that it was recently made an easier thing to do:

cathnewsusa.com/article.aspx?aeid=14245

Getting a dispensation from either religious vows or the priestly vow of celibacy should not be a cause of scandal. The Church has the authority to do this. Therefore, nothing is wrong in doing it. There is no complicity here. This is a case of the Church exercising her authority as she wishes. The problem is not with the Church or the priest or religious who asks for a dispensation and receives it. The problem is the laity.

Of course the Church has the authority. Whether it should or should not be scandalous is entirely subjective, i.e. one would need to know the specific circumstances (and I still think that scandal, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder).

I know a deacon whose wife died who wanted to marry again, years later, and was denied the dispensation. It would not have been a scandal were he permitted to, as far as our local community was concerned. He was denied. He left the diaconate. Personally I think that’s scandalous on the part of the Church.

The problem is the laity? Are you kidding us?

Ordaining a man who within the first year of ordination is found to be having a sexual relationship with a minor? Ordaining a man who within the first year of ordination petitions to leave the priesthood to marry? Cases like this are blamed on the laity? Good grief.

 

[diggerdomer]

It was inherited from scripture and from the early Father. So, it never needed a formal proclamation. It is something that the Church has believed and makes reference to in all her writings on religious life.

Ahh. Ok. Then I’d expect there would be a wide variety of understandings regarding its status as “dogma.”

Pope John Paul II , Vita Consecrata, no. 32“As a way of showing forth the Church’s holiness, it is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ’s own way of life, has an objective superiority.

Pope John Paul reaffirms what has been said in the past.

As long as this statement is interpreted in light of the entire document (and Church teaching) which includes:

1. Because the role of consecrated life in the Church is so important,

Note here at the beginning of Vita Consecrata Pope JPII uses “important.” Not “essential.” Sacraments are essential to Catholicism, so obviously Marriage and Holy Orders are essential to the Church. Religious life is not (and this in no way detracts from its importance, significance, holiness, value, etc.).

1. The different ways of life which, in accordance with the plan of the Lord Jesus, make up the life of the Church have mutual relationships which merit consideration.

By virtue of their rebirth in Christ, all the faithful share a common dignity; all are called to holiness; all cooperate in the building up of the one Body of Christ, each in accordance with the proper vocation and gift which he or she has received from the Spirit (cf. Rom 12:3-8).The equal dignity of all members of the Church is the work of the Spirit, is rooted in Baptism and Confirmation and is strengthened by the Eucharist.

Note here, just before the excerpt you cited, there’s a common and equal dignity, a common call to holiness.

Pope Pius XII, Sacra Virginitas, no. 32“This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as we have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent, and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church."

Pope Pius XII recalls the recognition of the dogma by the Council of Trent. This decree was speaking about religious life as having been revealed by Christ himself. Therefore, religious life is found in revelation.

Again, as long as this is interpreted in the entire context, e.g. the first paragraph of that document:

1. Holy virginity and that perfect chastity which is consecrated to the service of God is without doubt among the most precious treasures which the Founder of the Church has left in heritage to the society which He established.

Note: AMONG the most precious treasures. Not the best or most precious, necessarily.

Council of Trent
“If anyone saith that the marriage state is to be preferred before the state of virginity, let him be anathema.” …] "writing to the Corinthians, [Paul] says: I would that all men were even as myself; that is, that all embrace the virtue of continence…A life of continence is to be desired by all.” (cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent, pg. 225)

If one does not believe that the religious life is preferable to the married life, then one is to be excommunicated.

Nope. What the quotation you cited says that if anyone says marriage is preferred to virginity, let them be anathema.

It does NOT say one has to believe religious life is preferable to marriage. According to the citation you cited, Catholics could believe the state of marriage and virginity are equal, or they could believe that the state of virginity is preferable to marriage. Right?

Do you read the citation from Trent differently?

Saint Cyprian of Carthage, A.D. 258 †
“But chastity maintains the first rank in virgins, the second in those who are continent (celibate), the third in the case of wedlock.” …] “While laws are prescribed to matrons … virginity and continency are beyond all law; there is nothing in the laws of matrimony which pertains to virginity; for by its loftiness it transcends them all.”

The virgins are both male and female religious. Celibates are secular or diocesan priests and in third place are married persons. This was a teaching of the early Church which is still in effect today.

Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, A.D. 373 †
“Now if a man choose the way of the world, namely marriage, he is not indeed to blame; yet he will not receive such great gifts as the other. For he will receive, since he too brings forth fruit, namely thirtyfold. But if a man embraces the holy and unearthly way, even though as compared with the former it be rugged and hard to accomplish, nonetheless it has the more wonderful gifts: for it grows the perfect fruit, namely a hundredfold.”

St. Athanasius establishes that marriage has its graces, but not as many as the religious life.

Individual quotations from Church Fathers are, of course, an important part of our tradition. But in and of themselves they do not define dogma.

As we can see, the Church has believed in the superiority of religious life, even over the priesthood since its early days, beginning with Christ, St. Paul and the Church Fathers. The Council of Trent labeled it a dogma. It was not declared a dogma, because it was part of the Church since its foudation, as was the Eucharist. You can’t declare a dogma that is already familiar to the Church. You can only acknowledge it. This is what Trent and all other councils have done.

Your citations have not convinced me. I think it’s anachronistic at best and specious at worst to claim anything from St. Paul regarding religious life as we understand it.

I disagree that “You can’t declare a dogma that is already familiar to the Church. You can only acknowledge it” My understanding is that this is exactly, essentially, what was done e.g. with the Immaculate Conception. The Church had been believing and worshiping in accordance with that truth for centuries. The formal declaration of that dogma in 1854 was, in a way, simply an acknolwedgment of what was and had been familiar to the Church.

 

[Hidden_One]

The Church believes that she never makes mistakes when ordaining.

Not that I’m disagreeing, Br. JR, but could you cite references for this (so that I have some defense if I ever have need to pass that on)?

Maybe semantics, but I think the Church does have the right to “undo” ordination, and imho it seems that it was recently made an easier thing to do:

cathnewsusa.com/article.aspx?aeid=14245

In large part, Br. JR’s point, diggerdomer, is that a laicization does not undo an ordination. Indeed, even a laicized priest who was also under the most grave of excommunications can give absolution to someone at the point of death, and even were a cleric with normal faculties - say, the Pope - was standing right there and not otherwise occupied.

I know a deacon whose wife died who wanted to marry again, years later, and was denied the dispensation. It would not have been a scandal were he permitted to, as far as our local community was concerned. He was denied. He left the diaconate. Personally I think that’s scandalous on the part of the Church.

It’s the 2000 year old standing tradition in all rites of the Catholic Church: once you are ordained to diaconate, you are no longer free to marry. Period. The deacon should have been well aware of that fact, and should have accepted it before choosing to follow his vocation to the diaconate. If he was unwilling to accept this fact, he should not have followed it. (I know of one Eastern Catholic man who married, was ordained, and his wife died a week later. These things happen.)

The problem is the laity? Are you kidding us?

Ordaining a man who within the first year of ordination is found to be having a sexual relationship with a minor? Ordaining a man who within the first year of ordination petitions to leave the priesthood to marry? Cases like this are blamed on the laity? Good grief.

He’s not. You’re misunderstanding him. I hope that Br. JR will not mind my rephrasing of his core message, and I hope that I have it right.
**
The problem with a laicization is not the church, nor the priest, but the laity, who often see it - intrinsically - as some great and scandalous evil, which it itself is not.**

 

[diggerdomer]

The problem with a laicization is not the church, nor the priest, but the laity, who often see it - intrinsically - as some great and scandalous evil, which it itself is not.

Help. I don’t know what you mean. Thanks.

 

[Hidden_One]

Help. I don’t know what you mean. Thanks.

Pragraph one of the article linked to:

Pope Benedict has given the Congregation for Clergy new powers** to dismiss from the priesthood and release from the obligation of celibacy** priests who are living with women, who have abandoned their ministry or who have engaged in seriously scandalous behaviour.

(emphasis added)

That’s laicization.

Laicization itself is not scandalous. The Church can do it. The priest can be laicized. It is not itself a sin for a priest to be laicized, even though it often occurs on account of sin - actual or perceived. Most lay people, however, think that a laicization itself is a scandal (likely because it often results from a scandal) and because of this, lay people often cause an unnecessary uproar and have a poor view of laicized priests by default.

 

[JReducation]

HiddenOne has understood and rephrased what I said very correctly and I’ll try to explain it usiing different words, maybe this will help. I hope.

Let’s talk about the priesthood first.

1. The process of laicization does not mean that a man is no longer a priest. It means that he is may no longer function as a priest, except in cases of life and death, such as giving absolution in cases of emergency. Were he truly a layman again, he would not have the power to absolve from sin even in an emergency.
2. The term laicization means that a deacon, priest or bishop is allowed to live as a layman. It does not mean that he becomes a layman. He will always be an ordained minister, until death. The ordination cannot be revoked. That is why the term laicization is used rather than return to the lay state. Because a cleric cannot return to the lay state any more than a baptized Christian can become an unbaptized person, even if he practices paganism. These are permanent sacraments and impose an ontological change in the soul that cannot be undone.
3. Observe that the statement also says that laicization is only for those who are in a relationship with a woman or who are invalidly married. It does not apply to clerics involved in child sexual abuse. The reason for that is because in the case where a cleric gets married, the Church, in her mercy, wants to give him the opportunity to marry properly in the Catholic faith. In the case of a sexual offender, laicization does not change the situation. There is not such thing a good Catholic sexual offender. But there are such people as good Catholic husbands and fathers. Many dispensed priests make very good husbands and fathers.
4. Not every cleric or every religious who requests a dispensation from vows is involved in a scandal. Some ask for other reasons, such as a desire to marry, difficulties living the common life, difficulties with obedience, a loss of faith, health reasons or even family reasons such as taking care of an elderly parent. This is where the problem comes in with the laity. The laity has a tendency to look at dispensed priests and religious as if they had committed a sin. There is no sin involved in leaving the prieshood or religious life if you have a dispensation to do so. The decreee of dispensation actualloy says that you are free to rejoin the ranks of the faithful and to live the Catholic faith as any other faithful Catholic. You can receive the sacraments and participate in the life of the Church like any other Catholic. You can even enter into a valid Catholic marriage.
5. When we say that the Church does not recognize that she made a mistake in ordaining a cleric or accepting the solemn vows of a religious man or religious woman, she is right. That person was called by Christ to Holy Orders or to religious life or to both. The proof is that the Church confirms the call in the name of Christ. At the profession of vows the Major Superior says, “And if you persevere in what you have promised, I on the part of Christ, promise you eternal life.” He we apply the law of the Church teaching as she prays. The Church in the liturgy of religious vows promises, through the Major Superior, eternal life to the person making the vows. The Church cannot make such a promise in a state of doubt. Therefore, the Church is certain that this person has been called. This does not mean that the person is going to be faithful. Therefore, the mistake is not on the part of the Church, but on the part of the religious or the cleric who has sinned gravely. However, his or her sin does not revoke Christ’s call. Judas was called and he betrayed Christ. Nonetheless, the Church teaches us that Judas as an Apostle, which in today’s language means that he was a bishop. Christ’s call to Judas is not revoked by Judas’ sin. Israel sinned against God, but God’s covenant with Israel is not revoked because Israel sinned. Christ still came to fulfill the covenant, despite Israel’s sin. The covenants that God makes with men are not undone by men’s sins. If the sins of a priest or a religious were a sign of a mistake, then it is Christ who made the mistake in calling that person. The Church is simply confirming the call. We believe that this confirmation is infallible. The Church confirms the call through the power of the Holy Spirit. That does not mean that the person who was called is a saint or will be a saint. That’s a whole other issue. We have had many sins committed by clerics and religious, even more serious than sexual abusel. Some include murder. But they remain religious or clerics, because they were called. The Church can dismiss them from active ministry. This is the process of laicization, the return to living as a lay person, not being a lay person. There is a difference between living as something and actually being something. You are not really lay person. You appear to be one, because the Church allows you to live as one. Notice, that it is the Church that has the power to allow a cleric or religioius to live as a lay and secular person. The cleric and religious do not have the power to grant themselves that permission.

As long as the Church has the full authority to allow a cleric or a religious to live as a secular and lay person, then the Church also has the full authority to say that the vows and the ordination are valid and binding and that she has not made a mistake. That she is granting the dispensation from the obligations for the salvation of the person’s soul. The dispensation is from the obligations, not from the ordination or from the commitment made at solemn vows. Those remain in place. And if ever there is an opportunity for the person to return, he or she has the moral obligation to return to fulfill that commitment, with the permission of the Church of course.

1. In the case of the deacon, the Church did nothing that was scandalous. It has been a 2,000 year tradition that clerics do not get married. Married men can become clerics, but not the other way around. This is found in all of the Apostolic Churches, not just the Catholic Church. Therefore, the fact that it is consistent in all seven apostolic Churches, makes it binding on all Catholics and Orthodox.

Religious will be continued on next post.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Now let’s talk about the consecrated life. The idea of a consecrated life is already found in Jesus himself. The Church teaches that those who profess the evangelical counsels in some form or another, are entering a covenant to live as Jesus lived: obedient, poor and celibate. They are also professing to live in the same intimate communion with the Father that Jesus lived. They are professing to give their life for the Church, as Jesus did. They are also professing to live the Gospel in a more intimate union with God, without the complexities that arise from marriage or holy orders as Jesus lived it.

Jesus teaches about this way of life. When those around him say that it is better not to marry, Jesus says “Let him who has ears to hear, hear this.” St. Paul picks up on the same theme and doctrine taught by Jesus when he speaks about marriage. Marriage is good and was seen by the Church of Paul’s time as a sacrament. If one can do without this, it is even better, because a consecrated man is concerned with the things of God.

The Fathers pick up the idea that this way of life, which later came to be called religious life, is a higher calling. It frees man to think only about the things of God: prayer, silence, ministry, brotherhood, Eucharist, poverty, obedience, chastity, penance, evangelization, mission, detachment from family, friends, people and places, the salvation of souls, offering of self on the cross and the good of the universal Church, without the limits of a diocese or a family.

They realized that these things cannot be done by the married person to the degree, intensity or frequency that they can be achieved by the consecrated man. They can’t even be done by the cleric who has a pastoral mission to fulfill. Thus they understood that this is truly a higher calling, because it places divine priorites above all other priorities in the life of the average Christian. A priest is limited to his diocese. A religious has no diocese. A married person has his marriage and family. A religious has only one family, his brothers in community. Usually, he or she has no children. He has only one spouse, Jesus Christ. Yes, male religious are also married to Christ, not just female religious.

The Council of Trent picks up on the same theme. At the time there were those who claimed rights over religious: parents over their children who were religious, children born to sinful religioius (unfortunately), bishops, kings, and jilted fiances (sp?) who had lost their loved ones to the religious life.

Trent has to respond to the situation. The Council Fathers go back to the Gospel, to St. Paul, and to the Fathers and declare once and for all, the place of religious life in the Church, as a dogma.

Now, some would say that religious life is not essential to the Church. Vatican II declared that religious life is essential to the life of the Church. However, religious life is not part of the hierarchical structure of the Church or the sacramental system. Religious life is in a category of its own. The Church declares that the life that religious are called to live is the same as that of the angels who live all eternity in praise and adoration of God. There is no higher calling than to spend eternity in adoration and praise of God. The religious begins this life on earth and if he or she is faithful, the Church guarrantees that it will continue in eternity.

This is not meant to make married people and priests defensive of their states in life. Religious life is not a state in life. It is a way of life. It is taken out of the two states in life and is placed in its own reality. It is also essential to the Church, because it proclaims the nature of Christ’s inner life for the world to see, not just hear it preached. It also proclaims the life in heaven for the world to see, not just hear about it in sermons or read about it in books. That is why the Church is so protective of religious and religious life. Even when religious sin.

The Church took religious life out of the hands of the laity and of the bishops and placed it directly under the authority of the Pope in the 12th century. She wanted no one, not even bishops to intervene with religious men or religious women. They were placed under the protection of the Holy See. This is what we call Potifical Right. Only the Pontiff has the right to intervene in their way of life and only the Pontiff has the right to erect or disband a religious order or congregation, even if it’s a secular order. Once an order has received the privilege of Pontifical Right, its members answer directly to their superiors and the superior to the Holy Father.

Pope Innocent II did not want the laity involved in the affairs of the religious. He prohibitted it by taking the religious under the protection of the papacy, to this day and decreed that any lay person who intervened in the internal affairs of the religious could be excommunicated for assuming a role that is reserved for the pope.

Now, if we stop and consider everything that has been said about religious life, from Christ to today and everything that the Church has done to protect religious life and to protect religious themselves, and everything that the Church has done to promote religious life, we can then ask ourselves the question, what is so important about religious life that the Church has taken a greater interest in that than in other states in life? The answer is, that the Church holds religious life to be the highest vocation in the Church.

We must understand that if one is called to be single, married, a deacon, priest or bishop, that is the highest calling for that person. It is not the highest calling the Church. But Christ calls us to where he knows that we can find salvation if we are faithful.

I always use this analogy. The Presidency is the highest office in our nation. But this reality does not take away the right and dignity of the citizens of the nation. Religious life does not take away the rights and dignity of clerics and lay people. It’s simply a call for a very select group of people, not because they are better than other Christians, but because Christ has chosen them from among other Christians for his own reasons. Those of us who are religoius have no clue why Christ called us. We believe that he wants us to love him without any other commitment.

I hope this helps a little bit. I really don’t want to turn this into a debate about I’m better than you are because I’m a religious and you’re not. This about a calling to a covenant that is very special, and we do not deserve to be called to. Due to God’s mercy, we have been called to it. The whole glory and honor belongs to him. We still remain sinful and struggling human beings.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

Pragraph one of the article linked to:

(emphasis added)

That’s laicization.

Laicization itself is not scandalous. The Church can do it. The priest can be laicized. It is not itself a sin for a priest to be laicized, even though it often occurs on account of sin - actual or perceived. Most lay people, however, think that a laicization itself is a scandal (likely because it often results from a scandal) and because of this, lay people often cause an unnecessary uproar and have a poor view of laicized priests by default.

Thanks, that helps. Of course laicization is not necessarily a scandal…but let’s be honest, it often is to many people (whether justified or not) given the way many people view ordination. As you note, if it happens as a result of sin, it’s likely scandalous (at least to some).

Thank you again for helping me understand what you meant.

 

[diggerdomer]

1. The term laicization means that a deacon, priest or bishop is allowed to live as a layman. It does not mean that he becomes a layman. He will always be an ordained minister, until death.

I admit I am fuzzy on this. Can you help with references so that I can better understand the intricacies and details? It seems to me that laicization would in fact “revoke” Holy Orders. But, again, I’m here to learn.

Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

Now, some would say that religious life is not essential to the Church. Vatican II declared that religious life is essential to the life of the Church.

Again, I would appreciate your help in learning. Where did Vatican II declare this?

My understanding has always been that Sacraments are essential to the Church, and so Holy Orders and Marriage are essential. Religious life is not…which in NO WAY detracts from the holiness and value that the religious life (apart from Orders and Marriage) imparts to the Church.

thanks.

 

[JReducation]

Vatican II states:

**Religious life has its own place in relation to the divine and hierarchical structure of the Church. It is not a kind of intermediate way between the clerical and lay conditions of life, but comes from both as a special gift for the entire Church (cf. LG 43; MR 10). **

On Holy Orders Canon Law says:

**Can. 1008 By divine institution, the sacrament of orders establishes some among the Christian faithful as sacred ministers through an indelible character which marks them. **

The key word here is “indelible”, meaning that it cannot be erased, deleted or removed. The mark of holy orders is permanent.

CHAPTER IV.

LOSS OF THE CLERICAL STATE

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

1/ by a judicial sentence or administrative decree, which declares the invalidity of sacred ordination;

2/ by a judicial sentence or administrative decree, which declares the invalidity of sacred ordination;

3/ by rescript of the Apostolic See which grants it to deacons only for grave causes and to presbyters only for most grave causes.**

A cleric can lose his clerical state, also called laicization in common parlance, but the ordination remains valid. Therefore, he remains a deacon or a priest for the rest of his life.

Can. 291 Apart from the case mentioned in ⇒ can. 290, n. 1, loss of the clerical state does not entail a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy, which only the Roman Pontiff grants.

Even when a cleric is laicized, he is bound to celibacy. Only the Holy Father can grant him permission to marry. If the permission is denied, the cleric remains an ordained minister, but cannot function as such and must live out his life as a celibate person.

Can. 293 A cleric who loses the clerical state cannot be enrolled among clerics again except through a rescript of the Apostolic See.

The important detail in this law is that a rescript by the Holy Father is all that is needed for a cleric to return to the clerical state. He does not need to be ordained again, because the ordination remains in effect and valid. A rescript means that he is reinstated as a cleric.

I hope this helps.

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Geremia]

No. Our priest just spoke about this in his homily on Wednesday. The most holy vocation is the one carried out in complete obedience to the Lord. So if God wants you to marry and you become a priest or religious, your vocation is actual less because it isn’t your true vocation.

Exactly! This is the best response I have read so far. I just don’t understand why the Church and St. Paul even have to say that virginity is preferable to marriage (1 Cor. 7). I just get the impression that St. Paul thinks marriage is more of a necessary evil (cf. 1 Cor. 7:8-9: “I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.”) than a sacrament, since, e.g., “he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided” (1 Cor. 7:33), even though Ephesians 5 is very pro-marriage as a sacrament.

 

[Geremia]

one is better/easier/more perfect than the other for reaching this holiness

As Thomas puts it, the highest state of life is not merely the life of contemplation, but contemplata aliis tradere, that is, handing on the fruits of one’s contemplation.

This really reminds me of the story of Mary and Martha, the difference between the contemplative and active lives, respectively. Jesus says, “Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:42). “Best” in terms of ease or perfection, though? Does marriage exclude contemplation more so than the consecrated, contemplative life? Is this what St. Paul means when he says: “he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided” (1 Cor. 7:33)? A married man like St. Joseph definitely was contemplata aliis tradere to Jesus; he instructed Him not only in a trade but also how to be a man, right?

St. Thomas says:

According to Jerome (Contra Jovin. i) the error of Jovinian consisted in holding virginity not to be preferable to marriage. This error is refuted above all by the example of Christ Who both chose a virgin for His mother, and remained Himself a virgin, and by the teaching of the Apostle who (1 Corinthians 7) counsels virginity as the greater good. It is also refuted by reason, both because a Divine good takes precedence of a human good, and because the good of the soul is preferable to the good of the body, and again because the good of the contemplative life is better than that of the active life. Now virginity is directed to the good of the soul in respect of the contemplative life, which consists in thinking “on the things of God” [Vulgate: ‘the Lord’], whereas marriage is directed to the good of the body, namely the bodily increase of the human race, and belongs to the active life, since the man and woman who embrace the married life have to think “on the things of the world,” as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 7:34). Without doubt therefore virginity is preferable to conjugal continence.

 

[Geremia]

The Church decides what is your vocation.

You mean the Church decides what isn’t your vocation? Also, is this related to “the power of the keys?”

 

[Geremia]

There are and always have been married Catholic priests and deacons.

Those must be schismatics, then. Priests are married to the Church, not to women. Priests who are not celibate, except for very grave reasons, are polygamous; they have two wives: the Church and a woman. Why have three divided loyalties: between the Church, the world, and God instead of one with virginity (God) or two (wife/world & God) with marriage? Why is celibacy not preferable (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 7:33)?

 

[Geremia]

I can understand what you say in your comment that people beleive that priests or religious are lonely or live a harder life than other Christians.

I, being married, think the opposite, but that could be just me…

The Catholic laity has two tendencies and both are very extremist. On the one hand they believe that the priesthood and the religious life so difficult that they live in awe or even pity for us. Or there is the other extreme. They believe that we have been given graces to live super human lives and should be able to respond to every sacrifice, every challenge, every demand and every difficulty. This is not true either. We do not cease to be human.

But having received Holy Orders, you are ontologically different than a non-ordained man. You are not “just a man like every other man.”

I tried to explain that religious life is not about making yourself sick or uncomfortable to the heck of it; but you sacrifice and live with discomfort for a purpose when there is a purpose.

Of course, you should do everything for God even if it is meaningless to man and the world. This goes for marrieds Catholics, too.

 

[JReducation]

I, being married, think the opposite, but that could be just me…But having received Holy Orders, you are ontologically different than a non-ordained man. You are not "just a man like every other man."Of course, you should do everything for God even if it is meaningless to man and the world. This goes for marrieds Catholics, too.

We have to make a distinction here between ordination and religious life. They are not the same. Ordiantion is a sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders. Through the imposition of hands, the deacon, priest or bishop, whoever is being ordained, received a sign on his soul that produces an ontological change. This means that the person’s soul has change in some form enabling him to function in the person of Christ the servant (deacon), Christ the the priest (presbyter) and Christ the the King (bishop).

However, an ordained man is not a consecrated man. He does not consecrate his life to live the Gospel by observing the Evangelical counsels according to a rule of life within a community of brothers. A consecrated man can be ordained, but it is not necessary. He makes three vows: obedience, poverty and chastity. His life is governed by the rule of his religious community. His celibacy has an added dimension. Not only does he give up marriage, just like a priest or bishop, but unlike a priest or a bishop, he also gives up his biological family. He no longer belongs to his family. He even gives up his right to inherit from his parents. His siblings are his biological siblings, but his real brothers aer his brothers in the order. This too is part of the vow of chastity. You give up marriage, your family, your birth-right and you bind yourself heart, mind, body and soul to a community of brothers whom you love, obey, honor and serve as a spouse would do with his wife.

Holy Orders does not contain the second part of the vow of chastity. That’s why it’s not called chastity, it’s called celibacy. It’s a commitment to live the counsels like everyone else, but in the single state. But it does not cut you off from family or from your brithright. If your Father is Bill Gates and he dies, guess what? You own Microsoft. It is your birthright. Consecrated men do not have birthrights. Priests do, unless the priest chooses to join a religious order.

Also, priests promise to obey their bishop. Consecrated men vow to obey the Gospel, the Church, the founder of their order, the successors of the founder, the rule, the constitution of their order and to obey their brothers. A deacon and a priest is are only bound to obey the bishop. The bishop is bound to obey the pope. There are no promises to obey founders, successors, brothers, rules and constittuions. Therefore, the promise of obedience that a deacon, priest and bishop make is different, because it is not as restrictive. Bishops cannot interfere in the personal lives of their clergy. Religious superiors run your life.

Deacons, priests and bishops do not vow poverty. They can be very wealthy or very poor. Consecrated men must vow never to own anything. By this vow they consecrate themselves to Divine Providence.

Finally, it is a doctrine of the Church that the consecrated life is the highest calling and if one disagrees with that, one can be excommunicated. To use the doctrine’s wording, you can be anathema.

**5. Consecration is the basis of religious life. By insisting on this, the Church places the first emphasis on the initiative of God and on the transforming relation to him which religious life involves. Consecration is a divine action. God calls a person whom he sets apart for a particular dedication to himself. ** vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccscrlife/documents/rc_con_ccscrlife_doc_31051983_magisterium-on-religious-life_en.html

Pope John Paul II , Vita Consecrata, no. 32
“As a way of showing forth the Church’s holiness, it is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ’s own way of life, has an objective superiority.

Council of Trent
“If anyone saith that the marriage state is to be preferred before the state of virginity, let him be anathema.” …] "writing to the Corinthians, [Paul] says: I would that all men were even as myself; that is, that all embrace the virtue of continence…A life of continence is to be desired by all.” (cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent, pg. 225)

Pope Pius XII, Sacra Virginitas, no. 32
“This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as we have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer.

Since the time of Paul the Church has held the doctrine on Consecrated Life, which is different from the doctrine on the Priesthood. That’s another doctrine.

Priests are set apart to act in Persona Christi. Religious are set apart to be united with Christ.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SerraSemper]

It was inherited from scripture and from the early Father. So, it never needed a formal proclamation. It is something that the Church has believed and makes reference to in all her writings on religious life.

Pope John Paul II , Vita Consecrata, no. 32“As a way of showing forth the Church’s holiness, it is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ’s own way of life, has an objective superiority.

Pope John Paul reaffirms what has been said in the past.

Pope Pius XII, Sacra Virginitas, no. 32“This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as we have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent, and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church."

Pope Pius XII recalls the recognition of the dogma by the Council of Trent. This decree was speaking about religious life as having been revealed by Christ himself. Therefore, religious life is found in revelation.

Council of Trent
“If anyone saith that the marriage state is to be preferred before the state of virginity, let him be anathema.” …] "writing to the Corinthians, [Paul] says: I would that all men were even as myself; that is, that all embrace the virtue of continence…A life of continence is to be desired by all.” (cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent, pg. 225)

If one does not believe that the religious life is preferable to the married life, then one is to be excommunicated.

Saint Cyprian of Carthage, A.D. 258 †
“But chastity maintains the first rank in virgins, the second in those who are continent (celibate), the third in the case of wedlock.” …] “While laws are prescribed to matrons … virginity and continency are beyond all law; there is nothing in the laws of matrimony which pertains to virginity; for by its loftiness it transcends them all.”

The virgins are both male and female religious. Celibates are secular or diocesan priests and in third place are married persons. This was a teaching of the early Church which is still in effect today.

Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, A.D. 373 †
“Now if a man choose the way of the world, namely marriage, he is not indeed to blame; yet he will not receive such great gifts as the other. For he will receive, since he too brings forth fruit, namely thirtyfold. But if a man embraces the holy and unearthly way, even though as compared with the former it be rugged and hard to accomplish, nonetheless it has the more wonderful gifts: for it grows the perfect fruit, namely a hundredfold.”

St. Athanasius establishes that marriage has its graces, but not as many as the religious life.

As we can see, the Church has believed in the superiority of religious life, even over the priesthood since its early days, beginning with Christ, St. Paul and the Church Fathers. The Council of Trent labeled it a dogma. It was not declared a dogma, because it was part of the Church since its foudation, as was the Eucharist. You can’t declare a dogma that is already familiar to the Church. You can only acknowledge it. This is what Trent and all other councils have done.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br. JR, I would disagree that virgins = religious men and women. Virgins are known by tradition and by history as female virgins. Religious are by definition celibate but not necessarily virgins. In other words, they make vows to henceforth observe continence… whereas virgins have maintained their virginity. Consecrated virgins have been consecrated in their virginal bodies and souls to be brides of Christ through a rite reserved to bishops. The conferral of the sacramental of the consecration of virgins is considered the crowning glory of consecrated life for religious women if they are eligible. Celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is the basic requirement for the consecrated state. For religious men and women and diocesan hermits, this celibacy is vowed to be observed from that time on. For consecrated virgins, true virginity (not merely celibacy) is required, and this it is the bishop’s conferral of the consecration of virgins (analogous to ordination) which constitutes the female virgin a “sacred person” and a bride of Christ in the most direct sense and places her into the consecrated state (if she is living in the world and is not already in the consecrated state by means of religious vows). A virgin living in the world makes no vows in the ceremony, public or private, but that commitment to maintain perpetual virginity is made.