Priests and marrige?

[DustinsDad]

…also asked the apologists to answer this specific question, so we’ll see if they do.

Can you go to hell for refusing to become a priest?

I’ve heard a priest say that it is very difficult to have “final perseverance” (heaven) if you are not “in” whatever vocation the Lord has called you to. This would apply both ways however, for the person that the Lord calls to the priesthood and does not respond, and for the person the Lord calls to some other vocation (probably marriage) yet manages to get himself ordained anyway. Discernment is crucial!

And this isn’t because “not becoming a priest” is wrong, but that in God’s plan for us - the vocation he calls us to is accompanied by a multitude of graces just for us. Graces we need to help us persevere.

Much to little emphasis is paid, I would suspect, on properly praying about and discerning what the Lord has in mind for us. Especially for young men and teenage boys. Oftentimes what the Lord wants may not be what we expect.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[otjm]

When changing a discipline of the Church (or any organization for that matter), the questions always need be asked “to what end?”, that is, what is to be gained?

There is no evidence that allowing RC Priests to marry carte blanche will do anything to affect the priest shortage, or any other facet of their life.

The most ardent critics of said policy tend not to be Priests, or those considering the vocation, but outsiders who simply don’t like it.

I am not sure that comment can stand up to the evidence of all the priests who ahve left the priesthood to get married.

Members of the Deaconate can be married (assuming they after post marriage), and it isn’t as though the Deaconate is busting at the seems with volunteers.

Perhaps you could quantify what “bursting at the seems” means in numbers. The United States has the greates majority of pemanent deacons in the world; I believe it is now well over the 14,795 as of 2006 (CARA statisitics); compared to 28,299 diocesan priests in 2006. It may not be busting at the seems, but it is half the number of priests; in 1975 there were ony 898 per CARA. Sorry, they do not give a breakdown of how many are married at the time of ordination.

So really, we need to ask “why should the Church allow Priests to marry?”

Quite so. One of the reasons given is that married men may feel the call to ordination (and yes, I am aware that the call comes from the Church). Since we already have a married clergy in the Western rite (for Protestant converts) and a history throughout the Church in the Eastern rites of married clergy all 2000 years, why can we not have both a celebate and a married clergy - as we already do?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well I would suppose Catholics explain it much the same way the Orthodox do when the Orthodox explain why their bishops are all celibate. Keeping in mind that Peter was a bishop.

So were the other Apostles, including St. Peter, here named.

.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Church also approves of altar girls. Need I say more? If your answer is yes, keep in mind that the Church approved of the Crusades which most Catholics today consider wrong (which it wasn’t…just trying to make a point.) Just because it’s approved doesn’t make it right. The Church needs to spend Her time fixing the seminaries and getting the liberals out so Catholicism can be taught again. Once that is done, there won’t be the “need” of ordaining married men who’s immediate responsibility is to their family, not the entire parish.

Rather interesting (and I say that both as an Arab and an Orthodox) that you uphold the approval of the Crusades, but denounce the Apostolic (who heeded the Lord’s rebuke of Luke 9:56, and did not live by the sword) practice of a married priesthold, including St. Peter.

 

[latinmasslover]

Rather interesting (and I say that both as an Arab and an Orthodox) that you uphold the approval of the Crusades, but denounce the Apostolic (who heeded the Lord’s rebuke of Luke 9:56, and did not live by the sword) practice of a married priesthold, including St. Peter.

What’s wrong with defending the Christians agaist the Moslems? Jesus did say to pick up the sword, to get another. Interpret as you will, but just because we’re Christian doesn’t mean we have to tolerate the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children. Yes, the Crusaders weren’t all good and moral soldiers, but that doesn’t mean the Crusades were bad.

 

[latinmasslover]

You are the one asserting that celibacy is a higher calling and therefore have the burden of proof. However, I will provide some refutation of your claim while waiting for it. I’ve also asked the apologists to answer this specific question, so we’ll see if they do.

Can you go to hell for refusing to become a priest?

There is a current thread in Vocations on this topic, so it might be better to transfer this side-venture there.

I checked out the link, what exactly was it supposed to prove? I never said that one couldn’t achieve holiness outside the consecrated life, I simply said (as do the Church, Scriptures, and Saints) that the consecrated life is the higher calling. If you’re going to continue saying it’s not, please back that up with the Scriptures, Church documentation, and especially the writings of the Saints.

Please don’t misinterpret what I’m saying, I’m not opposed to marriage in the least, as I hope to be married someday soon. I’m also not saying that every consecrated celibate is holier than a husband/father, wife/mother, engaged/single person. I’m just trying to point out that the higher calling is remaining celibate for the Lord, just like the contemplative life (when truly practiced) is higher than the apostolic…It’s not everybody’s path, but it is still the higher calling.

 

[Keikiolu]

Simple question…
Is there Biblical basis for denying priests the right to be married?

You’ve heard this already:

The bible is not a decision maker in any fashion. The originator of the bible is the decision maker.

The Church, not the bible, has the last say in matters such as these.

As such, the Church says no priests may marry after ordination, and celibacy is ALWAYS prefered in every case of the priestly vocation.

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=celibacy&s=SS

Priests ARE married. To whom? Figure it out.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You’ve heard this already:

The bible is not a decision maker in any fashion. The originator of the bible is the decision maker.

The Church, not the bible, has the last say in matters such as these.

As such, the Church says no priests may marry after ordination, and celibacy is ALWAYS prefered in every case of the priestly vocation.

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=celibacy&s=SS

Priests ARE married. To whom? Figure it out.

And St. Peter got his mother in law from where?

 

[Woodstock]

I checked out the link, what exactly was it supposed to prove?

I believe my previous post answered that. I’m not trying to prove anything. You are the one who is trying to prove that holy orders or the religious life is superior to marriage or the single life. While waiting for your supporting documentation on your assertion, I was posting a related anecdote which had a story of a pope asserting that marriage was an equal calling to holy orders. I am waiting for your evidence on why he was wrong and you are right. I also posted the specific question to the apologists and am waiting to see if they select and answer it.

You are the one asserting that celibacy is a higher calling and therefore have the burden of proof. However, I will provide some refutation of your claim while waiting for it. I’ve also asked the apologists to answer this specific question, so we’ll see if they do.

Can you go to hell for refusing to become a priest?

 

[havemercy]

Some of you have contentions about celibacy and its place in the Church…Well, I couldn’t articulate to you why the Church understand the call to celibacy to be a “higher” calling, but don’t be confused into thinking that the Church somehow looks down on marriage as if it were an inferior calling. Marriage is a very high calling, and is the first calling of man and woman. It is the Divine road sign to the everlasting communion in the thrice Holy Trinity, and the primordial sacrament.

But those called to celibacy are given it by God as a gift for the kingdom of God. The Church, and consequently, many married people need the prayers and witness of these souls who are called to magnify God with their whole being, with God as their sole and final spouse.

In my experience with speaking to religious and married people, they truly do need each other by way of example and imitation. Married people need to remember that marriage isn’t the end-all be-all of their existence, and that while their devotion to each other and to God is great, it still needs purification. Religious and priests need to see the concrete and tangible sacrament of Christ’s love for His Church the Bride, and by example they assume with virtue their role as alter Christus and as a living sacrifice offered in Christ beloved of the father.

Try to think of it this way: Priests are to be available to their flock 24/7. Marriage doesn’t benefit the flock, and it wouldn’t benefit the family of the Priest, as a married man has obligations to his wife and children. It’s not fair to the parish, the wife and children, or the Priest. It only makes sense. Keep in mind, exceptions are just that, exceptions, not the norm.

Actually, the situation you’ve described here is largely determined by the society in which the local church happens to reside. You’ve probably heard that in the East (not the West), priests were encouraged by their bishops to marry before being ordained (knowing full well that if they were married they could not become a bishop). This was actually considered “ideal” for most priests! That they have a wife and raise what we today called a “domestic church”. The priest was the Father and his wife was Mother of the people, and both played significant roles in church life…And still do today. You can visit an Eastern Catholic parish and see for yourself how this tradition is maintained today, even by churches in communion with the Holy See.

I’ve been considering the Eastern priesthood for a little while now, and it just seems too wonderful to me. I’d be living something of both mysteries: being consecrated to my wife and to the church. Sure, I’d be busy as heck, but its the only business I could deal with and keep sanity.

 

[havemercy]

Some of you have contentions about celibacy and its place in the Church…Well, I couldn’t properly articulate to you why the Church understands the call to celibacy to be a “higher” calling, but don’t be confused into thinking that the Church somehow looks down on marriage as if it were an inferior calling. Marriage is a very high calling, and is the first calling of man and woman. It is the Divine road sign to the everlasting communion in the thrice Holy Trinity, and the primordial sacrament.

But those called to celibacy are given it by God as a gift for the kingdom of God. The Church, and consequently, many married people, need the prayers and witness of these souls who are called to magnify God with their whole being – with God as their sole spouse. That they may be sacrificing marriage for example is only one aspect of this high calling. It is a calling to a intimate union with Christ in spiritual solitude. Those who have such a calling are pulled in the heart by grace, and have such an intense desire to live that single life for God. While marriage is as dignified as celibacy (both are valid and ordained by God), the call to religious life or the priesthood is a higher one by its extraordinary example and poverty.

In my experience with speaking to religious and married people, they truly do need each other by way of example and imitation. Married people need to remember that marriage isn’t the end-all be-all of their existence, and that while their devotion to each other and to God is great, it still needs purification. Religious and priests need to see the concrete and tangible sacrament of Christ’s love for His Church the Bride lived with piety, and by example they should assume with sublime virtue their role as alter Christus as a living sacrifice in Christ, the Fathers only beloved, begotten Son. In marriage the spiritual reality of communion with God is made visible, to those called to live the Gospel in a radically sacrificial way are given courage by married people living their vocation with fervor. So to those who are married, if you want to see your priests happy and holy, live your vocations to the full!

Make yourselves saints and do so quickly, n’est pas?

This is my impression at least. Feel free to tear me apart.

Try to think of it this way: Priests are to be available to their flock 24/7. Marriage doesn’t benefit the flock, and it wouldn’t benefit the family of the Priest, as a married man has obligations to his wife and children. It’s not fair to the parish, the wife and children, or the Priest. It only makes sense. Keep in mind, exceptions are just that, exceptions, not the norm.

Actually, the situation you’ve described here is largely determined by the society in which the local church happens to reside. You’ve probably heard that in the East (not the West), priests were encouraged by their bishops to marry before being ordained (knowing full well that if they were married they could not become a bishop). This was actually considered “ideal” for most priests! That they have a wife and raise what we today called a “domestic church”. The priest was the Father and his wife was Mother of the people, and both played significant roles in church life…And still do today. You can visit an Eastern Catholic parish and see for yourself how this tradition is maintained today, even by churches in communion with the Holy See.

I’ve been considering the Eastern priesthood for a little while now, and it just seems too wonderful to me. I’d be living something of both mysteries: being consecrated to my wife and to the church. Sure, I’d be busy as heck, but its the only business I could deal with and keep sanity.

However, I must conclude with the affirmation of the discipline enforced by Rome pertaining to the Latin Rite. There is good reason for this discipline, and I would rather see it than not see it. It is, in the final analysis, an invitation by God to Catholic men to consider the holy priesthood in its dignity and grace.

In Him, the True Vine, Jesus Christ.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

In my experience with speaking to religious and married people, they truly do need each other by way of example and imitation. Married people need to remember that marriage isn’t the end-all be-all of their existence, and that while their devotion to each other and to God is great, it still needs purification. Religious and priests need to see the concrete and tangible sacrament of Christ’s love for His Church the Bride lived with piety, and by example they should assume with sublime virtue their role as alter Christus as a living sacrifice in Christ, the Fathers only beloved, begotten Son. In marriage the spiritual reality of communion with God is made visible, to those called to live the Gospel in a radically sacrificial way are given courage by married people living their vocation with fervor. So to those who are married, if you want to see your priests happy and holy, live your vocations to the full!

]

Only the married need purification?

 

[latinmasslover]

I believe my previous post answered that. I’m not trying to prove anything.

It doesn’t. Why do you find this concept so offensive?

Gospel of St. Matthew Ch. 19
12: For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take , let him take it.
21: Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast and give to the poor and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. And come follow Me.

1 Corinthians Ch. 7
1-2: Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife: and let every woman have her own husband.
6-9: But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. For I would that all men were even as myself. But every one hath his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that. But 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.
32-34: But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord: how he may please God. But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord: that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world: how she may please her husband.
38-40: Therefore, both he that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well: and he that giveth her not doth better. A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth: but if her husband die, she is at liberty. Let her marry to whom she will: only in the Lord. But more blessed shall she be, if she so remain, according to my counsel.

2 Timothy Ch. 2
3-4: Labour as a good soldier of Chirst Jesus. No man, being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular businesses: that he may please Him to Whom he hath engaged himself.

(continue)

 

[latinmasslover]

(continued)

SACRA VIRGINITAS
POPE PIUS XII
20. …Writing by divine inspiration, the Apostle of the Gentiles proposes the reason for this freedom in these words: “And I would have you to be without solicitude. . . But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife; and he is divided.” Here however it must be noted that the Apostle is not reproving men because they are concerned about their wives, nor does he reprehend wives because they seek to please their husbands; rather is he asserting clearly that their hearts are divided between love of God and love of their spouse, and beset by gnawing cares, and so by reason of the duties of their married state they can hardly be free to contemplate the divine. For the duty of the married life to which they are bound clearly demands: “They shall be two in one flesh.” For spouses are to be bound to each other by mutual bonds both in joy and in sorrow. It is easy to see, therefore, why persons who desire to consecrate themselves to God’s service embrace the state of virginity as a liberation, in order to be more entirely at God’s disposition and devoted to the good of their neighbor. How, for example, could a missionary such as the wonderful St. Francis Xavier, a father of the poor such as the merciful St. Vincent de Paul, a zealous educator of youth like St. John Bosco, a tireless “mother of emigrants” like St. Francis Xavier Cabrini, have accomplished such gigantic and painful labors, if each had to look after the corporal and spiritual needs of a wife or husband and children?
21. …As the Angelic Doctor has it, the use of marriage "keeps the soul from full abandon to the service of God.”
23. Consider again that sacred ministers do not renounce marriage solely on account of their apostolic ministry, but also by reason of their service at the altar. For, if even the priests of the Old Testament had to abstain from the use of marriage during the period of their service in the Temple, for fear of being declared impure by the Law just as other men, is it not much more fitting that the ministers of Jesus Christ, who offer every day the Eucharistic Sacrifice, possess perfect chastity? St. Peter Damian, exhorting priests to perfect continence, asks: “If Our Redeemer so loved the flower of unimpaired modesty that not only was He born from a virginal womb, but was also cared for by a virgin nurse even when He was still an infant crying in the cradle, by whom, I ask, does He wish His body to be handled now that He reigns, limitless, in heaven?”
24. It is first and foremost for the foregoing reasons that, according to the teaching of the Church, holy virginity surpasses marriage in excellence. Our Divine Redeemer had already given it to His disciples as a counsel for a more perfect life. St. Paul, after having said that the father who gives his daughter in marriage “does well,” adds immediately “and he that gives her not, does better.” Several times in the course of his comparison between marriage and virginity the Apostle reveals his mind, and especially in these words: “for I would that all men were even as myself. . . But I say to the unmarried and to widows: it is good for them if they so continue, even as I.” Virginity is preferable to marriage then, as We have said, above all else because it has a higher aim: that is to say, it is a very efficacious means for devoting oneself wholly to the service of God, while the heart of married persons will remain more or less “divided.”

CCC
1620 …Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good onlyin comparison with evil would not be truly good. The most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good.

Will you now quote the Church on the opposite?

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*You’ve heard this already:

The bible is not a decision maker in any fashion. The originator of the bible is the decision maker.

The Church, not the bible, has the last say in matters such as these.

As such, the Church says no priests may marry after ordination, and celibacy is ALWAYS prefered in every case of the priestly vocation.

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com…=celibacy&s=SS*

Priests ARE married. To whom? Figure it out.

And St. Peter got his mother in law from where?

Well, technically, from his wife’s parents,… I suppose.

Peter was married before his “ordination”. She remained his “other half”, his Eve, his wife until one or the other died, as marriage is indisoluble until death of the spouse.

But until he was “de-married” to his spouse, which may have been at his death, he lived a chaste life within the rules of the Church concerning “married priests”.

So,… what’s your point again…?

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by havemercy forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*
In my experience with speaking to religious and married people, they truly do need each other by way of example and imitation. Married people need to remember that marriage isn’t the end-all be-all of their existence, and that while their devotion to each other and to God is great, it still needs purification*. Religious and priests need to see the concrete and tangible sacrament of Christ’s love for His Church the Bride lived with piety, and by example they should assume with sublime virtue their role as alter Christus as a living sacrifice in Christ, the Fathers only beloved, begotten Son. In marriage the spiritual reality of communion with God is made visible, to those called to live the Gospel in a radically sacrificial way are given courage by married people living their vocation with fervor. So to those who are married, if you want to see your priests happy and holy, live your vocations to the full!

Only the married need purification?

Where did you get that? Are you simply being peurile, or what?

“Married people need to remember that marriage isn’t the end-all be-all of their existence, and that while their devotion to each other and to God is great, it still needs purification.”

All people need purification, which is simply not doing sin, and if sin is done, to seek the sacraments to deal with that sin.

That would include everyone who sins,… which would be,… wait for it,… wait for it,… EVERYONE…!

 

[Patchunky]

The fact is that marriage is discouraged for those who choose to devote their lives to serving the Lord; however, there are exceptions.

Try to think of it this way: Priests are to be available to their flock 24/7. Marriage doesn’t benefit the flock, and it wouldn’t benefit the family of the Priest, as a married man has obligations to his wife and children. It’s not fair to the parish, the wife and children, or the Priest. It only makes sense. Keep in mind, exceptions are just that, exceptions, not the norm.

My best friend is a married priest, his sister is a nun and his brother is also a priest.

His father is a priest who was ordained at a kitchen table in the middle of the night because the Catholic church was outlawed in his country.

His grandfather was also a priest.

None of them had trouble serving parishes and family…

 

[latinmasslover]

My best friend is a married priest, his sister is a nun and his brother is also a priest.

His father is a priest who was ordained at a kitchen table in the middle of the night because the Catholic church was outlawed in his country.

His grandfather was also a priest.

None of them had trouble serving parishes and family…

I did say there are exceptions, but that still doesn’t change the fact that it shouldn’t be encouraged, especially when there’s a shortage of priests.

 

[otjm]

I did say there are exceptions, but that still doesn’t change the fact that it shouldn’t be encouraged, especially when there’s a shortage of priests.

Lets see: by your logic - we have a shortage of priests; Ordaining men who are already married would give us more priests. Conclusion: don’t ordain married men.

Yep. Makes perfect sense to me!

Note: nowhere have I ever suggested that the priest shortage could or should be cured by ordaining married men. It is a fact that requiring men to be celibate (an entirely separate vocation) before they could be ordained is a discipline. But it seems to me that there is an essential dishonesty in proceedure that we can and will ordain a married man if he was a convert and minister before conversion, but for a Catholic who is married and feels called to the priesthood, that we won’t ever even consider it in the Roman rite.

And I fail to understand what I seem to hear from Rome when the conversation comes up: they seem to respond as if there is someone out there attacking celibacy. That may well be, but I have not heard it; I have simply heard the request that we also consider married men as candidates. That has nothing to do with "getting rid of"celibacy.

When I hear that response, I begin to wonder what really is at play here. I have no problem with celibacy; it is a vocation some are called to. Not all are, and it seems presumptious to me that it is an absolute requirement.

In addition, the Western rite has had a less than honest and forthright response to the Eatern rites in the US. Sort of a “How are you going to keep them on the farm when they have seen Paris” response. Our charity was dismal at best.

 

[latinmasslover]

Note: nowhere have I ever suggested that the priest shortage could or should be cured by ordaining married men. It is a fact that requiring men to be celibate (an entirely separate vocation) before they could be ordained is a discipline. But it seems to me that there is an essential dishonesty in proceedure that we can and will ordain a married man if he was a convert and minister before conversion, but for a Catholic who is married and feels called to the priesthood, that we won’t ever even consider it in the Roman rite.

And I fail to understand what I seem to hear from Rome when the conversation comes up: they seem to respond as if there is someone out there attacking celibacy. That may well be, but I have not heard it; I have simply heard the request that we also consider married men as candidates. That has nothing to do with "getting rid of"celibacy.

When I hear that response, I begin to wonder what really is at play here. I have no problem with celibacy; it is a vocation some are called to. Not all are, and it seems presumptious to me that it is an absolute requirement.

Personally, I don’t believe that converts should become priests in the Church if they’re married. The problem is the exception becoming the norm. If married men are allowed to become priests, the next step is to get rid of priestly celibacy. Married men have responsibilities to their families, priests to their parish. To be distracted by one while helping the other isn’t fair to either , *especially *with a shortage of priests (as one will definitly get the short end); it makes perfect sense. Ordaining married men is a false answer to a real problem. The seminaries need to get back on track and start becoming seminaries. Priests need to start preaching Catholicism instead of a watered-down Christianity, say Mass reverently and start behaving like priests. Then, and only then, will there be an attraction to the vocation of the priesthood, and thus the problem solved. Caving in has done no good for the Church.