Split from "A question for some Protestants who try to proselytize Catholics": Are Catholic priests "Forbidden to Marry?"

[Dokimas]

He would be an unemployed priest, but once a man is ordained to the priesthood, he is a priest forever - it is not possible to “undo” his ordination. Merely firing him does not reverse the ontological change in his nature that took place at his ordination.

Again - the priesthood is not a “job” that one applies for at the unemployment office - it is a vocation - it is the man himself; not merely the work that he does.

A Protestant who gets fired from the ministry can say “I used to be a church minister,” but a priest is always a priest, for all of eternity - even if he goes to Hell, he goes to Hell as a priest; not as an ordinary man.

What good is being a ‘fired’ priest? He can not serve in his calling. For ALL practical, and my I add, reasonable purposes, he is not a priest. He is, as you put it, fired. Fired why, because he chose to get married rather that having his passions burn within him. Very honorable, may I add.

You call the priest a man with a vocation. If he chooses to marry the CC takes away his right to live as his vocation dictates.

Any way you slice it, it’s the same. The CC would do itself a favor if it would get back to the teachings of Jesus and Paul, of course, IMO.

 

[Dokimas]

What’s up with the quotation marks? Whether you agree or not that the vow of celibacy is necessary or appropriate, it’s still a solemn vow before God, and as such, must be taken seriously. God will not be mocked. And yes, the Scriptures seem pretty clear about what happens to people who break their vows to God - it’s not very pretty!

A question end with a question mark. That’s all.

So, you ARE saying a man like the priest in Florida is accursed eternally.? Yes or no, please.

 

[wanner47]

A question end with a question mark. That’s all.

So, you ARE saying a man like the priest in Florida is accursed eternally.? Yes or no, please.

That’s not a yes or no question. The correct answer is, “Only God can judge souls.” Catholics don’t presume to judge who is or is not eternally damned – that can only be determined by God.

 

[jmcrae]

A question end with a question mark. That’s all.

“Quotation marks” - not “question marks” - you put “vow”] instead of [vow].

So, you ARE saying a man like the priest in Florida is accursed eternally.? Yes or no, please.

He has the option to go to Confession and do penance, of course - but if he were to die unrepentant, then yes, he would most certainly go to Hell, because it is a very serious sin to break one’s vow to God.

 

[Dokimas]

That’s not a yes or no question. The correct answer is, “Only God can judge souls.” Catholics don’t presume to judge who is or is not eternally damned – that can only be determined by God.

I was asking in context of the discussion. The idea of eternal accused came from a catholic poster whom I’ve been communicating with.

One of you fellows seemed to answer ‘yes’.

 

[jmcrae]

What good is being a ‘fired’ priest? He can not serve in his calling. For ALL practical, and my I add, reasonable purposes, he is not a priest. He is, as you put it, fired. Fired why, because he chose to get married rather that having his passions burn within him. Very honorable, may I add.

Not “honourable” at all. He has eight to ten years to discern whether he is capable of being celibate, before he has to take the vow - seminary is not a four-year college course, and they are not young inexperienced boys when they graduate.

You call the priest a man with a vocation. If he chooses to marry the CC takes away his right to live as his vocation dictates.

If he chooses to marry, he has broken his solemn vow. He loses his position for breaking his vow to God.

It’s the same for lay people who get divorced and attempt to remarry.

Men (and women) who can’t keep their vows to God (whatever their vows may be) can’t actively serve in the Church - not lay people, and not priests.

The CC would do itself a favor if it would get back to the teachings of Jesus and Paul, of course, IMO.

Neither Jesus nor Paul tolerated the breaking of vows to God.

 

[Dokimas]

“Quotation marks” - not “question marks” - you put “vow”] instead of [vow].

He has the option to go to Confession and do penance, of course - but if he were to die unrepentant, then yes, he would most certainly go to Hell, because it is a very serious sin to break one’s vow to God.

My bad. For emphasis showing I understood the position of many here that it was a ‘vow’ issue.

Didn’t Peter vow to follow Jesus no matter what they did to Jesus? That was NOT a vow that Jesus wanted him to make.

Didn’t Peter vow to defend Jesus? That wasn’t a vow Jesus wanted him to make.

Maybe men like the FL priest made the wrong vow to God, trying to be obedient to the CC. Maybe Jesus didn’t call him to that vow. He would only have to repent he made the wrong vow, would he not? Should that disqualify him from his priestly office?

 

[jmcrae]

Maybe men like the FL priest made the wrong vow to God, trying to be obedient to the CC.

Perhaps he did. Perhaps instead of being called to the priesthood, he was being called to marriage and family life. Be that as it may, having made the vow, he was bound to keep it. It’s not possible to switch vocations in mid-life.

One may change jobs, but one may not change one’s vocation - the essential character of oneself.

 

[Dokimas]

Perhaps he did. Perhaps instead of being called to the priesthood, he was being called to marriage and family life. Be that as it may, having made the vow, he was bound to keep it. It’s not possible to switch vocations in mid-life.

One may change jobs, but one may not change one’s vocation - the essential character of oneself.

If I understand you, I agree as far as you went. You did not include the man was called to be a married priest, which, for all practical ways of understanding, he was not able to be according to the CC. However, Jesus and Paul allowed for men to marry and be pastors, priests and bishops.

 

[guanophore]

Notice: I was relaying what was told to us (all the readers on that read the article provided by, I think it was WMScott).  It was NOT my opinion.

Okey Dokey Doki!

Just checking.

Nope again. Context, context, context. The context of our discussion is becoming a priest, not finishing seminary. I believe it was you that told ‘us’ that in the 3rd yrs of seminary, priests-to-be must vow to be celibate or they can not become a priest. That’s the context.

No, that was not mine, but it is true that those who are in the process of discerning the gift of celibacy do customarily do this.

If the priest is already married when he begins seminary, then he has already taken marriage vows, and does not take vows of celibacy. Though, in the Eastern Rites, there are strict liturgical guidelines and disciplines about abstaining from the marital embrace at certain times for prayer. In the Eastern Rites, as well as in all Rites for Deacons, those that enter in a married state agree not to marry should their spouse leave or die.

Those who are received into the priesthood from among our separated brethren (this is getting more common) go to seminary to make sure that they are clear about the difference between the Apostolic teachings and the heresies they may have unwittingly embraced growing up in separated ecclesial communities.

The Latin Rite is in great need of priests who are not divided in their interests, so she prefers to choose from among those who are called to celibacy.

. Can a priest remain a priest if he decides to get married because he falls in love with a woman?

There is no choice. All those who are ordained priests are priests forever, after the order of Melchizedech. They are caught up into the priesthood of Christ. Like baptism, it can’t be “undone”. It is a permanent seal.

If he has sex with a child or a woman and is not married, and the CC knows about it, can he remain a priest?

These violators are usually removed from parish work, and secluded. There is a treatment center for the pedophile priests near here. History has shown that they don’t get “cured”, and that putting them back in a position where they can offend is usually a disaster. Priests do not only serve in parishes, though.

Is it true or false. Which is it?

Your assertion is false. The Catholic Church does not forbid marriage, nor does she force celibacy on anyone. both of these states are considered gifts of God, and important parts of the sacramental life of the Church. Persons who take these vows are dedicating themselves to holiness, and to serve in developing the holiness of others. Such a commitment cannot be “forced” upon anyone.

So the man in Florida is still a priest? The CC still embraces him as a priest?

I am not sure what his status is, but he has been eternally sealed as a priest. What do you mean by “embrace him as a priest”? The Church embraces all repentant sinners, and tries to snatch the unrepentant out of the fires of hell. Are you suggesting that, since he has sinned, we should not try to grab hold of him and pull him out of the flames? Are you suggesting we should just push him off the cliff into hellfire?

BTW, I’m not under the idea a man must vow celibacy to remain in seminary, only to become a priest.

Ok. Thanks for correcting that.

You think if you looked at the ‘teaching’ of the Bible and desided that infant baptism was incorrect, you’d be eternally accursed???

If I did this, I would have rejected the Gospel that was delivered to me by the Apostles, and replaced it with “a different Gospel”. Since I am fully pursuaded that what was handed down to me is the Truth, such an act would constitue apostasy on my part.

It’s they way you speak to those who ‘cling’ to what they believe that is condescending.

Is it condescending to make note that our separated brethren have are not connected to the Apostolic Tradition? That they have embraced doctrines considered heretical by the Early Church?

 

[guanophore]

Why are we still going over this point. I understand people are willing to forgo the pleasures of sex to serve God. That’s NOT the issue here and never was. This statement of yours is OFF topic.

I think it is the topic. The Latin Rite prefers to choose from among persons who are willing to do this to serve as priests, so that their attention will not be divided. For some reason, you think these people do not freely choose to forgo the pleasures of sex in order to serve God.

How about this question: if a priest decides to get married (intead of his emotions burn within him) will be be eternally accursed because he’s going against his ‘vow’?

There are two issues here. One is that he has chosen a course of action (a celibate lifestyle) that requires discipline and commitment. In that sense, it is no different than a man who marries a woman. Is it a problem if he falls in love with a woman who is not his wife? What are we to expect him to do if these passions burn within him? Do we think it is ok for him to abandon his previous marriage vow, and indulge his fleshly desires?

On the contrary, a person who makes a vow is expected to keep it, not matter what kind it is. Jesus said, let your “yes be yes”.

The second issue, about eternal damnation, Catholics do not speculate. Judgement is up to God, and only He knows the state of the persons’ soul. One of the reasons it takes so many years of spiritual formation is so that the candidate will not be rash, will fully understand his/her choice, and will be spiritually prepared for the temptations and consequences of the choice.

The topic is marriage (to be celibate by not being married) is the issue.  Not just celibacy.  As Guanophore pointed out, a person can stop being celibate and NOT be married (that's clearly sin, IMO.)

And some people are not sexually active, not married, and have made no commitment to celibacy either. Celibacy in the Catholic framework is a lifestyle that has implications of permanency, just like marriage. A person may be single, chaste (abstinent) yet have no intention of remaining that way.

Those who take vows of celibacy for the Kingdom are considered married to the Church, or if they are women, espoused to Christ. It is a marriage vow without a physical component.

If my memory serves me, Guanophore told me to get back on topic a few weeks ago.  Did you tell him to let the mod's do their job or did you agree with him?

I don’t really mind going whereever the coversation takes me, unfortunately, I got in trouble for helping that thread get off track. My beef was that you seemed to be avoiding the subject.

 The issue was marriage so my comments pertain to marriage, NOT just celibacy.  Any attempt to corner me about celibacy is off MY part of this topic which is about 'forcing' priests to stay unmarried so they can remain priests.

No one can be “forced” into a certain state of sacred vows. Priests who decide to get married do not cease to become priests. I think maybe you are confusing the “job” of a pastor with the vocation of the priesthood.

Oh, and did you notice I only brought it to Guanophore's attention what the real topic was; that topic is NOT celibacy, but marriage of priest.

When the priest takes his vows, he is espoused to the Church. He is taken up into the priesthood of Christ, and pledges himself to serve His Holy Bride. Like Jesus, they are spiritually betrothed.

What good is being a ‘fired’ priest? He can not serve in his calling.

This is a very good question, and one that should be considered prior to violating one’s vows. If more priests seriously considered this in advance, then we would not have the scandals we do now. This is the question all of us must ask before we choose to sin. What good is it to call myself a Christian, if I act against Christ? What benefit is there to be a “Christian” if I cannot serve God in my calling?

Excellent point, Doki!

 For ALL practical, and my I add, reasonable purposes, he is not a priest.  He is, as you put it, fired.

You say this because you don’t seem to grasp the difference between a vocation and a job. There are plenty of vowed persons who are not employed in a parish.

Fired why, because he chose to get married rather that having his passions burn within him.  Very honorable, may I add.

He agreed prior to making his vow that he would deal with any “passions” burning in him just as those did who went before him in the faith. Most persons called to celibacy still have sexual passions. Why do you think Paul beat his body to subdue it? This is a necessary discipline when one chooses this lifestlye.

Yes, if one fails to govern ones’ passions, it is better to marry than to burn. I don’t consider it “honorable” to abandon ones promises to God and the church, however, it is a concession, and there are worse sins.

However, we don’t need people of this kind serving in the parishes. We need people who are able to govern their passions, and whose interests are not divided. He will need to have some other way to serve out his vocation.

 

[guanophore]

You call the priest a man with a vocation. If he chooses to marry the CC takes away his right to live as his vocation dictates.

No. Again, you are confusing vocation with “job”. If the man chooses to marry, then HE is the one who has chosen not to live according to his vocation. You have finally answered a question I posed to you several times. When you say “CC takes away his right” you are clearly indicating that you believe the priesthood is his “right”. This is not the case. No one has the “right” to be a priest.

Furthermore, when one takes priestly vows, one freely renounces his privileges to make other choices, just like the student who wishes to apply for the naval academy freely chooses not to marry while he is in attendance.

Any way you slice it, it’s the same. The CC would do itself a favor if it would get back to the teachings of Jesus and Paul, of course, IMO.

In truth, the CC has never left the teachings of Jesus and Paul, and we value the vocation of the celibate who is willing to make himself a eunuch for the Kingdom. We believe that persons who are given this gift should receive it, and we value it so much, that we choose from among those so gifted to serve as priests.

Didn’t Peter vow to follow Jesus no matter what they did to Jesus? That was NOT a vow that Jesus wanted him to make.

No. Peter made an emotional expression of loyalty and perseverance that was beyond his ability to keep.

Didn't Peter vow to defend Jesus?  That wasn't a vow Jesus wanted him to make.

Really? when did he do that? Do you think his bringing and taking up the sword is equivalent to a vow?

Peter died defending Jesus, and it was most certainly the life that Jesus wanted him to live. If Jesus did not, He would not have put him in charge of the care and feeding of the sheep.

Maybe men like the FL priest made the wrong vow to God, trying to be obedient to the CC. Maybe Jesus didn’t call him to that vow. He would only have to repent he made the wrong vow, would he not? Should that disqualify him from his priestly office?

I think you are confusing the identity of the priesthood with the “job” that a priest my have.

The reason the discernment period is so long is to prevent mistakes of this kind.

I don’t know that he did make a mistake. It could be that he became weak in his faith, did not have enough support spiritually from his parish, or his superiors, there are a number of factors that could have caused him to fail in his commitment.

If I understand you, I agree as far as you went. You did not include the man was called to be a married priest, which, for all practical ways of understanding, he was not able to be according to the CC. However, Jesus and Paul allowed for men to marry and be pastors, priests and bishops.

If God calls a man to e a married priest, then He will also send him along a different route so that this can be accomplished. He will be received into the priesthood already married, or he will come in through one of the Eastern Rites where the discipline of celibacy is no not practiced the way it is in the Latin. God is able to accomplish His will in everyone.

Not only that, if God desires that this present discipline be rescinded, He is perfectly able to convince the Magesterium of that fact. Do you believe God is able to make His will known?

The OT says that the Kingdom was for Gentiles as well as Jews, but Peter was not reaching out to Gentiles. Do you think that God was able to convince Peter differently?

Do you think that God is less powerful today?

 

[Dokimas]

Okey Dokey Doki!

Just checking.

No, that was not mine, but it is true that those who are in the process of discerning the gift of celibacy do customarily do this.

If the priest is already married when he begins seminary, then he has already taken marriage vows, and does not take vows of celibacy. Though, in the Eastern Rites, there are strict liturgical guidelines and disciplines about abstaining from the marital embrace at certain times for prayer. In the Eastern Rites, as well as in all Rites for Deacons, those that enter in a married state agree not to marry should their spouse leave or die.

Those who are received into the priesthood from among our separated brethren (this is getting more common) go to seminary to make sure that they are clear about the difference between the Apostolic teachings and the heresies they may have unwittingly embraced growing up in separated ecclesial communities.

The Latin Rite is in great need of priests who are not divided in their interests, so she prefers to choose from among those who are called to celibacy.

There is no choice. All those who are ordained priests are priests forever, after the order of Melchizedech. They are caught up into the priesthood of Christ. Like baptism, it can’t be “undone”. It is a permanent seal.

These violators are usually removed from parish work, and secluded. There is a treatment center for the pedophile priests near here. History has shown that they don’t get “cured”, and that putting them back in a position where they can offend is usually a disaster. Priests do not only serve in parishes, though.

Your assertion is false. The Catholic Church does not forbid marriage, nor does she force celibacy on anyone. both of these states are considered gifts of God, and important parts of the sacramental life of the Church. Persons who take these vows are dedicating themselves to holiness, and to serve in developing the holiness of others. Such a commitment cannot be “forced” upon anyone.

I am not sure what his status is, but he has been eternally sealed as a priest. What do you mean by “embrace him as a priest”? The Church embraces all repentant sinners, and tries to snatch the unrepentant out of the fires of hell. Are you suggesting that, since he has sinned, we should not try to grab hold of him and pull him out of the flames? Are you suggesting we should just push him off the cliff into hellfire?

Ok. Thanks for correcting that.

If I did this, I would have rejected the Gospel that was delivered to me by the Apostles, and replaced it with “a different Gospel”. Since I am fully pursuaded that what was handed down to me is the Truth, such an act would constitue apostasy on my part.

Is it condescending to make note that our separated brethren have are not connected to the Apostolic Tradition? That they have embraced doctrines considered heretical by the Early Church?

We are making no real progress.

 

[guanophore]

We are making no real progress.

You might not make any, Doki, and I accept that. However, if you look at the stats for this thread on the front page, there are almost 10x as many people reading it as there are posting on it. I write to you with those lurkers in mind, as I know many of them have your same misunderstandings and objections. If just one of them is able to better understand that the Church is unable to forbid marriage to anyone, then “real progress” has been made.

You have rejected the authority that the CC has to choose from among those called to be eunuchs for the Kingdom to serves as priests. Not everyone rejects that authority the way you do.

 

[PRmerger]

How about this question: if a priest decides to get married (intead of his emotions burn within him) will be be eternally accursed because he’s going against his ‘vow’?

How 'bout this question: if a man, who’s made a “vow” to his wife decides to embrace his emotional desire to plant his seed in another woman instead of “letting it burn within him”, will he be eternally accursed because he’s going against his “vow”?

I mean, if he stifles that desire to plant his seed in another woman, won’t that be a frustrating thing for him?

Isn’t that the point of your argument, Dokimas, that someone who really, really wants to have sex ought to be able to, and if he doesn’t then it’s going to cause him harm?

 

[Dokimas]

You might not make any, Doki, and I accept that. However, if you look at the stats for this thread on the front page, there are almost 10x as many people reading it as there are posting on it. I write to you with those lurkers in mind, as I know many of them have your same misunderstandings and objections. If just one of them is able to better understand that the Church is unable to forbid marriage to anyone, then “real progress” has been made.

You have rejected the authority that the CC has to choose from among those called to be eunuchs for the Kingdom to serves as priests. Not everyone rejects that authority the way you do.

If progress is showing others things about what we believe, maybe it has not worked quite the way you had hoped, you may have helped them change their mind.

 

[Dokimas]

How 'bout this question: if a man, who’s made a “vow” to his wife decides to embrace his emotional desire to plant his seed in another woman instead of “letting it burn within him”, will he be eternally accursed because he’s going against his “vow”?

I mean, if he stifles that desire to plant his seed in another woman, won’t that be a frustrating thing for him?

Isn’t that the point of your argument, Dokimas, that someone who really, really wants to have sex ought to be able to, and if he doesn’t then it’s going to cause him harm?

 

[Dokimas]

How 'bout this question: if a man, who’s made a “vow” to his wife decides to embrace his emotional desire to plant his seed in another woman instead of “letting it burn within him”, will he be eternally accursed because he’s going against his “vow”?

I mean, if he stifles that desire to plant his seed in another woman, won’t that be a frustrating thing for him?

Isn’t that the point of your argument, Dokimas, that someone who really, really wants to have sex ought to be able to, and if he doesn’t then it’s going to cause him harm?

3 ¶ The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’
5 "and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6 “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given:
12 “For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

Jesus condemns adultery. Jesus does NOT condemn those who can’t choose celibacy. He said ‘he who is able to accept it, let him accept it.’ One would think it’s fair that if one can NOT accept it, He does not hold that against them.

BTW, I just notice something. You guys have told us that Jesus did not give a reason to okay divorce. You say that Jesus didn’t mean to give divorce for adultery. Some tell us this is the only writer that gives that as an excuse to divorce therefore Jesus didn’t mean it. I check this out and this is the only accout I could find where it is recorded that the pharisees and sadducees specifically asked it there was any reason He’d give an okay to divorce (using my words but check out the quote highlighted).

 

[PRmerger]

Shrug?

You think that a man who really wants to have sex, despite making a vow, should be able to, else he’s going to be stifling some sexual urge?

Isn’t that your point?

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus condemns adultery.

Yes.

Jesus does NOT condemn those who can’t choose celibacy

Yes.

No one here condemns those who can’t choose celibacy. That’s crazy.

BTW, I just notice something. You guys have told us that Jesus did not give a reason to okay divorce. You say that Jesus didn’t mean to give divorce for adultery.

Right. Else if you want to divorce, “correctly”, you just have to cheat on your wife. What type of God would make a law like that? :whacky:

Some tell us this is the only writer that gives that as an excuse to divorce therefore Jesus didn’t mean it.

This is not a teaching of the CC. That’s also :whacky: