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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tantum_ergo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dokimas said:
Why avoid a specific question? Whether it is arrogant or correct is not the question. The question if you disagree with the CC teaching on infant baptism, as a catholic, will you be eternally accursed?
Click to expand...
I don’t know if you’ll be “eternally accursed” for disagreeing with the CC teaching on infant baptism. We Catholics are forbidden to determine who’s going to hell. It’s above our pay grade.

I’m just saying that it’s a little arrogant for someone to say they disagree with Jesus on any particular issue.

Most Catholics disagree with the Catholic Church’s teachings on sex. They often say, “I am a Catholic, but I disagree with the Church on ________” (fill in the blank with any sexual sin).

What they’re really saying is, “I am a Catholic, but I disagree with Jesus on ________” Oh, the arrogance! :eek:
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?
Click to expand...
No, I didn’t. I notice that he does often point out that particular points are off topic. If he wants to point that out, that’s fine with me. 🤷

However, I don’t really care about things being off topic. I rather like going off on tangents, but that’s just me.
 
PRmerger said:
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?
Click to expand...
Nope. It’s out of exasperation that you compare the two things when one is definately a sin (adultery/divorce) and a man desiding celibacy was not for him. Celibacy is not a sin; getting married because celibacy isn’t possible isn’t a sin. Apples with apples.
 
Dokimas said:
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.
Click to expand...
You say this because you have an impoverished understanding of the priesthood. It’s not a job.

A priest is ontologically a priest, that is, at his very essence. It’s not a job, like a plumber.

Thus, he can’t be “fired” from being a priest, any more than you can be “fired” from being a man.
 
PRmerger said:
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:
Click to expand...
So you don’t understand what Jesus was saying. No big deal. I’ll try to help. Jesus said a man’s only reason to divorce his wife is if SHE is unfaithful (has sex with another). It’s not the he can commit adultery and get a legal divorce. Here, two negatives don’t make a positive, silly girl, it multiplies sin.

BTW, you neglected the rest of my quote.:confused: Did you do so because it made sense?
 
Dokimas said:
Nope. It’s out of exasperation that you compare the two things when one is definately a sin (adultery/divorce) and a man desiding celibacy was not for him. Celibacy is not a sin; getting married because celibacy isn’t possible isn’t a sin. Apples with apples.
Click to expand...
You simply have no grasp of analogies.
 
PRmerger said:
No, I didn’t. I notice that he does often point out that particular points are off topic. If he wants to point that out, that’s fine with me. 🤷

However, I don’t really care about things being off topic. I rather like going off on tangents, but that’s just me.
Click to expand...
They why did you feel compelled to tell me not to say what I said to Guanophore?

BTW, I’m in agreement with your last paragraph.
 
PRmerger said:
You simply have no grasp of analogies.
Click to expand...
I agree that one, or both of us is stuggling here with your ‘analogies’.

I’m not sure how you seem to make analogous something that is sinful with something that is not (finding out that he is not able to keep his vow - in this case, maybe God never accepted the vow knowing the future.)
 
PRmerger said:
You say this because you have an impoverished understanding of the priesthood. It’s not a job.

A priest is ontologically a priest, that is, at his very essence. It’s not a job, like a plumber.

Thus, he can’t be “fired” from being a priest, any more than you can be “fired” from being a man.
Click to expand...
Using the word ‘impoverished’ seems a bit condescending, doesn’t it?

I used ’ ’ to denote it’s not fired like from a NORMAL job because there should be nothing normal about being a pastor/priest.​

Can a priest be defrocked (I’m not sure of the spelling)? Can a priest be taken away from serving as a perish priest?
 
Dokimas said:
Using the word ‘impoverished’ seems a bit condescending, doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
How so?

It’s a common phrase used to mean deficient.

I would not be offended whatsoever if you told me that my understanding of what went on in your church was impoverished. It would be a true enough statement.

Edit:
OOPS! I really meant to not try to use analogies and comparisons with you because you simply don’t understand the point being made…

But it’s quite impossible to have an enlightened discussion without making analogies.

So we’re stuck, aren’t we?
 
Dokimas said:
They why did you feel compelled to tell me not to say what I said to Guanophore?
Click to expand...
It’s a personal decision.

I feel we as hosts on the CAFs ought to be more liberal with our charity towards non-Catholics.

However, I also feel that we ought to more strict with our non-Catholic guests when they are incorrect.

That is, I wouldn’t necessarily correct a fellow Catholic when he’s made a minor error, yet I might tend to correct that same error posted by a non-Catholic.

No right or wrong answer–it’s just my preference. 🤷
 
Dokimas said:
Can a priest be defrocked (I’m not sure of the spelling)? Can a priest be taken away from serving as a perish priest?
Click to expand...
Yes, he can be taken away from serving as a parish priest.

But he is still a priest. Forever.

Even if he’s in hell, as jmcrae said.
 
Dokimas said:
Nope. It’s out of exasperation that you compare the two things when one is definately a sin (adultery/divorce) and a man desiding celibacy was not for him. Celibacy is not a sin; getting married because celibacy isn’t possible isn’t a sin.
Click to expand...
Neither is not becoming a priest. If he can’t be celibate, he should choose the vocation of marriage, instead of the vocation of the priesthood. One person cannot fulfill two vocations very easily, since both vocations demand 100% of his commitment.
 
PRmerger said:
It’s a personal decision.

I feel we as hosts on the CAFs ought to be more liberal with our charity towards non-Catholics.

However, I also feel that we ought to more strict with our non-Catholic guests when they are incorrect.

That is, I wouldn’t necessarily correct a fellow Catholic when he’s made a minor error, yet I might tend to correct that same error posted by a non-Catholic.

No right or wrong answer–it’s just my preference. 🤷
Click to expand...
Sounds like a double standard. If I’ve understood what you’ve just communicated, this question comes to mind… Do you expect to win the hearts of others by holding them to a standard you don’t hold a fellow catholic?
 
Dokimas said:
Sounds like a double standard. If I’ve understood what you’ve just communicated, this question comes to mind… Do you expect to win the hearts of others by holding them to a standard you don’t hold a fellow catholic?
Click to expand...
If we held you to the standards to which we hold each other, you wouldn’t be able to stand it. It’s actually better for you, that we are gentler with you than we are with each other. Catholics are supposed to know better - others need to be led more gently. 🙂
 
Dokimas said:
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.
Click to expand...
That would be an extremely difficult life for his wife and children, and just as not all, or even most, men are called to this, it would also be very difficult to find a woman who is called to be the wife of a priest and the mother of a priest’s children - they would not have a normal life - no yard for the children to play in, shopping only for the bare necessities - no TV sets or unnecessary books, no computer games, etc., very little furniture, having to share a kitchen with other priests and their cook, no play room for the kids, and having the kids pulled out of school and having to start making friends all over again every three years when he gets transfered to another parish.
However, Jesus and Paul allowed for men to marry and be pastors, priests and bishops.
Click to expand...
The difference is that they had been married before they came to the priesthood, and their wives understood the sacrifices that were going to be required of them. They made the decision together.
 
Dokimas said:
Sounds like a double standard. If I’ve understood what you’ve just communicated, this question comes to mind… Do you expect to win the hearts of others by holding them to a standard you don’t hold a fellow catholic?
Click to expand...
No. I just choose not to argue with fellow Catholics over minor things, like whether it’s ok to veer off topic or not. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top