I have an opinion, and I ask questions, attempting to take my faith seriously, and not blindly. That is not claiming any superiority, it is claiming to acknowledge what I understand and don’t understand, what I agree with and don’t agree with at this point in my walk. Thank you for your charity, and may God bless you.Or is it that you have an opinion that you deem is superior to what the Church actually Teaches?
I can see that there is no way to get though to you with this so it is time for me to move on to other things.
I will leave this in the very capable hands of jmcrae, that is until the thread is closed for being so far off topic.
Didn’t you write these words your previous post?This is not determined until one, or both of the parties to a marriage start the annulment process. So the answer as to if a marriage is valid or not does not occur at the time the marriage is contracted, or attempted to be contracted.
Consummation following a wedding is a standard procedure, I would think.
There is no way to know if the marriage is invalid. If the priest knows it will be invalid he will not proceed with the ceremony.
All marriages are assumed by the Church to be valid until one, or both, parties request that the tribunal look at their marriage to rule on it.
Have no clue what you are fishing for here.
It seems that you are stuck on when the marriage is declared to be not valid. It happens when the process is finished, it does not happen when the wedding takes place.
You are reading too much into the question. I wrote nothing to suggest an assumption that they hadn’t done so. The question was, wouldn’t they have to do so. Whether they do or not, is not for me to assume, and not something I need to or want to know. I would actually hope that they had, and it would be therefore be malice of me to assume that they had not.Why are you assuming that they haven’t?
No? What was the verse quoted from Mt 5?Have no clue what you are fishing for here.
So what is to some a risk of scandal, is to others worth the risk of scandal? Different guidelines by geography of dioceses? That’s too brilliant for my understanding.No, the dioceses and religious orders that do not accept men with annulments usually say that they do this to avoid scandal. I am sure you can understand that.
How dare you make that assumption about me. If they lacked Christian virtues, who would think they would make a good husband, let alone priest? 1 Tim 3 is clear in this regard. Of course I would have issues with that.Or a good husband. Yet the Church also permits them to get married. (I notice you don’t have any issues with that, though.)
I see silence in regard to divorce or annulments in this section on Holy Orders. Not an explicit “Yes” to annulled men.
Excellent way to avoid scandal. Seems effective?That’s true. That’s why men who are discerning ordination are examined by the Bishop - to weed out those who are not suited to this vocation…
Yet, if one reads Cochini's book on the Origins of Apostolic Celibacy, we see the priests and bishops and popes who where married and fathered children documented. Excellent weeding process then and now.Why do you assume the men lacked Christian virtues? Maybe the reason for the annulment was due to a problem with the women that they had tried to marry.How dare you make that assumption about me. If they lacked Christian virtues, who would think they would make a good husband, let alone priest? 1 Tim 3 is clear in this regard. Of course I would have issues with that.
Michael,I have an opinion, and I ask questions, attempting to take my faith seriously, and not blindly. That is not claiming any superiority, it is claiming to acknowledge what I understand and don’t understand, what I agree with and don’t agree with at this point in my walk. Thank you for your charity, and may God bless you.
Michael
See my last post. Maybe I wish to reach you in some way.Didn’t you write these words your previous post?
"I can see that there is no way to get though to you with this so it is time for me to move on to other things.
I will leave this in the very capable hands of jmcrae, that is until the thread is closed for being so far off topic."
Did you actually mean what you wrote, that it was time for you to move on? Your reply speaks to the contrary.
Your comments here are irrelevant. Celibacy is a discipline not a dogma. It could possibly be changed in the future. But as long as it is the current discipline of the Church, it must be obeyed. The men who receive annulments and choose to become priests know this requirement and do stay celibate.Excellent way to avoid scandal. Seems effective?
Concerning 1599 “In the Latin Church the sacrament of Holy Orders for the presbyterate is normally conferred only on candidates who are ready to embrace celibacy freely and who publicly manifest their intention of staying celibate for the love of God’s kingdom and the service of men.”
Code:Yet, if one reads Cochini's book on the Origins of Apostolic Celibacy, we see the priests and bishops and popes who where married and fathered children documented. Excellent weeding process then and now.
First, notice my words “If they lacked…” key word IFWhy do you assume the men lacked Christian virtues? Maybe the reason for the annulment was due to a problem with the women that they had tried to marry.
I read your last post. It is good not to react, especially when tempted to do so. And good to be careful with our words, especially, in my opinion, when they are written, as one has time to assess to some degree how those words will be taken.See my last post. Maybe I wish to reach you in some way.
As to the charity you spoke about. It is a two way street.
Since celibacy was a discipline at the time of some of the married popes and bishops who fathered children, and not a dogma, how irrelevant aremy comments?Your comments here are irrelevant. Celibacy is a discipline not a dogma. It could possibly be changed in the future. But as long as it is the current discipline of the Church, it must be obeyed. The men who receive annulments and choose to become priests know this requirement and do stay celibate.
NO it is not. There are some impediments that cannot be overcome that automatically invalidate a marriage and also mean that person could never try to enter a marriage again. But once again, this thread is not about all the Church laws involving annulments. I believe the OP has been answered.Maybe instead of looking at a problem with the woman, they should ask God for the grace to love the woman they married. No one is perfect, we all have our faults. Is Christian faith and love not enough to overcome such difficulties?
The answers have generally been that yes, a divorced man may become a priest after an annulment. AND one poster wrote: “A friend of mine was divorced and was able to beocme a Priest event though he never received an anullment. IIRC the Bishop used a obscure cannon law ruiling from the 13th century about a man who’s wife left him to enter a convent to rule him eligible for ordination. It caused quiite a stir and he was fiinally ordaned only after the Popes direct approval. I wouldnt count in that in most cases, BTW.”NO it is not. There are some impediments that cannot be overcome that automatically invalidate a marriage and also mean that person could never try to enter a marriage again. But once again, this thread is not about all the Church laws involving annulments. I believe the OP has been answered.
Michael;
Let’s just cut to the chase. What is it that you think the Church ought to teach, in this case?
To be fair, I will tell you that while, yes, I do submit to the Church because She is a lot wiser than I am - in my case, if it were my decision to make (which it isn’t) I would say that anyone who divorces ought to stay single and celibate in the lay state.
However, in Her wisdom, the Church chooses differently in some cases. Because I am a Catholic, and I made a vow to be taught by the Church when I made my Profession of Faith, I accept this, and when asked about it, I teach what the Church teaches; not my personal opinion.
I agree that "if it were my decision to make (which it isn't) I would say that anyone who divorces ought to stay single and celibate in the lay state."
Since I try, hopefully in good faith, to believe what the Church teaches, when I find myself either disagreeing or misunderstanding, I look to the Catechism and the Church's Sacred Scripture, and prayerfully ask God to guide my understanding. So, I test my opinion in light of Church teaching and Scripture.
If someone would ask me, I would state what the Church teaches and often whether I understand, or don't understand. Further, if I don't understand, I will admit it is likely that God has not given me the wisdom to understand, and point to Church teaching in documents, the Catechism, Scripture, early Church Fathers, etc as the basis for disagreeing or not understanding.
My Protestant friends over time see that I am not a parrot (not suggesting you or others are) and that I am honest in admitting what I do and don't understand, and see the serious effort I make to know and live my faith by God's grace. This tends to give weight to what I say to them, and some are much less "judgemental" about some Catholic teachings than they were before.
While speaking directly to faith and science, I think CCC159 is helpful in telling us that "there can never by any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Thus, if someone was in a joint business venture, and the venture failed, it might be reasonable not to jump quickly into another venture with that person, as who really knows how much they were responsible for the failure of the venture. If in time, they demonstrate ability in tasks and roles of "less" authority or responsibility, then there may be reason to believe it may be reasonable to encourage them to take on more of a leadership role. So, in my opinion, if they demonstrate by their walk ability to pursue a vocation to the priesthood, then it may be right to consider. Several years of waiting may be appropriate. We see this often in many professional careers. This also appears consistent with what Paul is saying in 1 Tim 3. "159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."