Thoughts on This Statement?

[joandarc2008]

This was my Face Book status this morning and I would be curious to know what you guys think as I know what I think:

Here is the amazing irony and misunderstanding we have of vocation- look at our reaction to a priest that cannot meet the requirements of his vows. We are outraged. Then look at our reactions to a man or woman that walks out on their spouse for another- we say things like do not judge. Have we stopped teaching that marriage is a lifelong vocational Sacrament given to us by Christ just as Holy Orders are?

 

[faithfully]

This was my Face Book status this morning and I would be curious to know what you guys think as I know what I think:

Here is the amazing irony and misunderstanding we have of vocation- look at our reaction to a priest that cannot meet the requirements of his vows. We are outraged. Then look at our reactions to a man or woman that walks out on their spouse for another- we say things like do not judge. Have we stopped teaching that marriage is a lifelong vocational Sacrament given to us by Christ just as Holy Orders are?

I think it’s an excellent point. I’m not sure we have stopped teaching that marriage is a lifelong sacrament… A few things come to mind:

I have a feeling that people in general, as a group, have the tendancy to JUDGE others but want consideration for ourselves… so a degree of selfishness is involved here.

A priest is also supposed to offer us guidance… even to the married couple. In that priests don’g go to the layman for advise, they go to THEIR superior. It’s sadly disappointing when our councel has failed. WE take it personally. Who can we trust?

I think the spouse left behind takes it personally… to the point of outrage. I think their neighbors just shake their heads. They don’t endure the personal pain.

And for those that just don’t value marriage… Well, there’s a lot more they don’t value… starting with God. If you don’t value God, you don’t value any of his sacraments. I think those same people look at a failed priest the same way they would look at a corrupt Judge, police officer, or FBI agent. They see someone in the position of “power” abuse it. That is unforgiveable. Especially if you don’t believe in forgiveness.

 

[PatriceA]

This was my Face Book status this morning and I would be curious to know what you guys think as I know what I think:

Here is the amazing irony and misunderstanding we have of vocation- look at our reaction to a priest that cannot meet the requirements of his vows. We are outraged. Then look at our reactions to a man or woman that walks out on their spouse for another- we say things like do not judge. Have we stopped teaching that marriage is a lifelong vocational Sacrament given to us by Christ just as Holy Orders are?

What exactly does this person mean by “a priest that cannot meet the requirements of his vows”? Are they referring to the sexual abuse scandal? If so, I would be just as outraged by ANY person that commits that crime, I don’t care who it is or what their vocation.

 

[joandarc2008]

What exactly does this person mean by “a priest that cannot meet the requirements of his vows”? Are they referring to the sexual abuse scandal? If so, I would be just as outraged by ANY person that commits that crime, I don’t care who it is or what their vocation.

Oh no Patrice- I would not go as far as sexual abuse - that is deplorable in ANYONE- I am referring to priests that leave the priesthood after meeting a woman and choose marriage for instance. Or priests that lose their faith in God.

I am not referring to priests with physical infirmities that are no longer able to carry out their physical duties but retire early and live by their vows - that is honorable.

 

[gardenswithkids]

This was my Face Book status this morning and I would be curious to know what you guys think as I know what I think:

Here is the amazing irony and misunderstanding we have of vocation- look at our reaction to a priest that cannot meet the requirements of his vows. We are outraged. Then look at our reactions to a man or woman that walks out on their spouse for another- we say things like do not judge. Have we stopped teaching that marriage is a lifelong vocational Sacrament given to us by Christ just as Holy Orders are?

I suggest the word “cannot” be changed to “does not”. To write “cannot” implies that God would not have given the priest the grace to keep his vows or that it was somehow outside of the ability of the priest to keep his vows to God and the Church. I believe that God wants to and *will *give them that grace, as long as they want to have it. They have a personal responsibility to keep their vows, just married persons do. I get the point that you were trying to make, but I point out it’s incorrect to use the word “cannot.”

 

[joandarc2008]

I suggest the word “cannot” be changed to “does not”. To write “cannot” implies that God would not have given the priest the grace to keep his vows or that it was somehow outside of the ability of the priest to keep his vows to God and the Church. I believe that God wants to and *will *give them that grace, as long as they want to have it. They have a personal responsibility to keep their vows, just married persons do. I get the point that you were trying to make, but I point out it’s incorrect to use the word “cannot.”

You would be completely correct - I guess the same with marriage where cannot gets you an anullment and does not gets you a legal divorce without a decree of nullity.

In the case of priesthood cannot allows a priest to be canonically released from his vows where does not leaves him a state of sin.

 

[FirstCalled]

I think the amount of priests who leave the priesthood to become married are very miniscule. I also think the amount of people who get divorced are astronomical. To me, it’s comparing apples to oranges.

 

[joandarc2008]

I think the amount of priests who leave the priesthood to become married are very miniscule. I also think the amount of people who get divorced are astronomical. To me, it’s comparing apples to oranges.

I am not comparing numbers - I am comparing the lack of comittment and preparation given to one compared to the other when they are both lifelong Sacraments Vocational Sacraments instituted by Christ - or is this lost on you?

 

[Jea9]

I think the amount of priests who leave the priesthood to become married are very miniscule. I also think the amount of people who get divorced are astronomical. To me, it’s comparing apples to oranges.

I worked for a Catholic hospital in a relatively small community in KS. Both the current head of Spiritual Ministry and the one before him were priests that had been laicized so that they could get married. I think that if in that small area there were two, it must happen more than we know. Not, by any means, comparing it to the numbers for divorce. Totally agree that you can’t really compare the two. Just pointing out that I don’t think it’s as rare as we think, which is totally sad.

I can’t help thinking that if I were that woman, I’d feel pretty darn guilty. I could not imagine being so selfish as to take a man away from God. And don’t you think they feel sad when they go to Mass and can’t consecrate the Eucharist. Sigh just makes me sad!

 

[KostyaJMJ]

I am not sure that it is a valid comparison really. Priests are allowed to be voluntarily laicized, but there is nothing similar for a married person. They are still priests but they are not allowed to exercise their priestly duties except in very limited circumstances and they are allowed to marry validly. They aren’t really breaking any vows as much as they are being dispensed from them for personal reasons. If you’re married you just don’t have that option.

You’re right though, it is strange how very few words roll of a Catholic’s tongue with such emphasis and hatred as ex-priest. I figure they gave a lot of their lives to serving the Church and they should be cut a little slack.

 

[joandarc2008]

I am not sure that it is a valid comparison really. Priests are allowed to be voluntarily laicized, but there is nothing similar for a married person. They are still priests but they are not allowed to exercise their priestly duties except in very limited circumstances and they are allowed to marry validly. They aren’t really breaking any vows as much as they are being dispensed from them for personal reasons. If you’re married you just don’t have that option.

You’re right though, it is strange how very few words roll of a Catholic’s tongue with such emphasis and hatred as ex-priest. I figure they gave a lot of their lives to serving the Church and they should be cut a little slack.

Not all priests can be voluntarily laicized. Some can get permission from the Bishop - and not all Bishops are granting it - two cases in the Archdiocese of Miami left publicly under penalty of sin and not in communication with the Roman Catholic Church and that was from public statements right on the web page of the Archdiocese.

In the case of those priests that belong to religious orders they need permission from Papal authority in some cases. - Someone with Canon experience can probably step in here but no - priests cannot just take off the collar and say they are done and stay in communion and be able to take the Eucharist. It does not work that way.

That is what makes this comparison fair - it is just as one person cannot get sick of being married one day walk out and set up house with another spouse and be re-married civilly.

 

[faithfully]

I worked for a Catholic hospital in a relatively small community in KS. Both the current head of Spiritual Ministry and the one before him were priests that had been laicized so that they could get married. I think that if in that small area there were two, it must happen more than we know. Not, by any means, comparing it to the numbers for divorce. Totally agree that you can’t really compare the two. Just pointing out that I don’t think it’s as rare as we think, which is totally sad.

I can’t help thinking that if I were that woman, I’d feel pretty darn guilty. I could not imagine being so selfish as to take a man away from God. And don’t you think they feel sad when they go to Mass and can’t consecrate the Eucharist. Sigh just makes me sad!

I’m confused. Are we talking of a priest that has voluntarily left the priesthood?

So, there’s no giving of oneself to the woman? She just takes? And she’s so powerful that she takes a person from God? Wow, she must be the Devil himself.

I used to know a woman who was a nun. She decided somewhere a long the line that she had chosen incorrectly… Went through an entire procedure… Is now happily married.

If a man or woman realizes as some point they are not right for the job of priest or nun they SHOULD re-examine themselves. It’s not taken lightly.

There was a discussion on this back in 2007

 

[KostyaJMJ]

That is what makes this comparison fair - it is just as one person cannot get sick of being married one day walk out and set up house with another spouse and be re-married civilly.

The difference is that there is no dispensation from wedding vows like there is for a priest. A priest can say, “I made a terrible mistake in becoming a priest”, and then follow the proper procedure for becoming laicized. The only thing that can free you from your marital vows is the death of your spouse.

 

[Nec5]

We are supposed to judge. Here is a good explanation for people who constantly call for “non-judgment”.
catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0702btb.asp

3 caveats.

1. We must not be hypocrites.
2. We must not get used to/accustomed to judging (spend our lives pointing out the flaws of others) and growing arrogant.
3. We must extend a hand to those who are truly repentant and help them wherever possible.
4. We must judge correctly.

Okay, 4 caveats.

 

[kelvinf]

Priests are human beings like any of us. They are sinners like any of us. So I personally don’t get outraged by their flaws.
Some are not actually called to priesthood but manage to find their way there…

We haven’t stopped teaching that marriage is a lifelong vocation. I always try to reiterate on this forum that marriage is for better or for worse. That marriage concluded and consummated can never be dissolved. That no man should put asunder what God has put together.

But I have noticed that there are Catholics on this forum who don’t seem to like to hear that marriage is supposed to be a lifelong vocation.

 

[kelvinf]

We are supposed to judge. Here is a good explanation for people who constantly call for “non-judgment”.
catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0702btb.asp

3 caveats.

1. We must not be hypocrites.
2. We must not get used to/accustomed to judging (spend our lives pointing out the flaws of others) and growing arrogant.
3. We must extend a hand to those who are truly repentant and help them wherever possible.
4. We must judge correctly.

Okay, 4 caveats.

I understand we can judge a person’s action but not the person.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

The difference is that there is no dispensation from wedding vows like there is for a priest. A priest can say, “I made a terrible mistake in becoming a priest”, and then follow the proper procedure for becoming laicized. The only thing that can free you from your marital vows is the death of your spouse.

I also used to think, mistakenly, that priestly celibacy is equivalent to marriage vows. But that’s not the case, as Brother JReducation explained on another thread, when Fr. Alberto Cutie a famous Catholic priest and media celebrity recently left the Catholic Church in order to marry. Validly exchanged marriage vows are binding for life, no matter what (well there are declarations of nullity, but those are findings that the vows were not validly exchanged in the first place). Roman Catholic priests, on the other hand, make a “promise” to stay celibate, and a “promise” is a lesser thing than a vow. The one thing that’s a vow that cannot ever be revoked, is what consecrated religious brothers (monks) and sisters (nuns) make - the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. In this sense, being a consecrated religious is the equivalent of being married, because the Church has no authority to give a dispensation to a monk or nun, to go and marry. But for a priest to make the promise of celibacy, is not equivalent to the forever binding vows of married people or religious brothers and sisters (there are also priest-monks who never can obtain dispensation to marry, but not because they are ordained as priests, rather because they also happen to be consecrated religious brothers, or monks for short). There are cases when Roman Catholic priests get dispensations to get laicized and get married. And Eastern Catholic Churches do have married priests. Also, an Anglican or Lutheran person who’s already married, may convert to Catholicism and get validly ordained as a Roman Catholic priest and stay married at the same time.

The celibate priesthood is an issue of “Church discipline” in the Roman Catholic Church, which is also a manner to say that it could even be changed tomorrow and all priests could get permission to marry, if the Church decided so - because the Church has authority to make up rules in matters of discipline. But allowing validly married people to break their vows, and ordaining women priests for another example, are things that the Church has no authority to do, because these things were set by God himself as forever binding laws.

And another thing I learned, a laicized priest or a priest who leaves the Catholic Church, gets married and converts to the Episcopal Church, is still a priest forever. He can still consecrate the Eucharist, but he is forbidden to do so. Masses celebrated by such priest, and sacraments performed by him would be valid, but illicit.

 

[joandarc2008]

I also used to think, mistakenly, that priestly celibacy is equivalent to marriage vows. But that’s not the case, as Brother JReducation explained on another thread, when Fr. Alberto Cutie a famous Catholic priest and media celebrity recently left the Catholic Church in order to marry. Validly exchanged marriage vows are binding for life, no matter what (well there are declarations of nullity, but those are findings that the vows were not validly exchanged in the first place). Roman Catholic priests, on the other hand, make a “promise” to stay celibate, and a “promise” is a lesser thing than a vow. The one thing that’s a vow that cannot ever be revoked, is what consecrated religious brothers (monks) and sisters (nuns) make - the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. In this sense, being a consecrated religious is the equivalent of being married, because the Church has no authority to give a dispensation to a monk or nun, to go and marry. But for a priest to make the promise of celibacy, is not equivalent to the forever binding vows of married people or religious brothers and sisters (there are also priest-monks who never can obtain dispensation to marry, but not because they are ordained as priests, rather because they also happen to be consecrated religious brothers, or monks for short). There are cases when Roman Catholic priests get dispensations to get laicized and get married. And Eastern Catholic Churches do have married priests. Also, an Anglican or Lutheran person who’s already married, may convert to Catholicism and get validly ordained as a Roman Catholic priest and stay married at the same time.

The celibate priesthood is an issue of “Church discipline” in the Roman Catholic Church, which is also a manner to say that it could even be changed tomorrow and all priests could get permission to marry, if the Church decided so - because the Church has authority to make up rules in matters of discipline. But allowing validly married people to break their vows, and ordaining women priests for another example, are things that the Church has no authority to do, because these things were set by God himself as forever binding laws.

And another thing I learned, a laicized priest or a priest who leaves the Catholic Church, gets married and converts to the Episcopal Church, is still a priest forever. He can still consecrate the Eucharist, but he is forbidden to do so. Masses celebrated by such priest, and sacraments performed by him would be valid, but illicit.

But in this case - we are assuming that the laicization (sorry spelling) has been accepted. In the case of Fr Cutie - it was not. This left Fr Cutie out of communion with the Church. It is only in cases where the laicization is accepted by the Bishop that it becomes valid and the priest is free of his vows. There is the rub.

 

[joandarc2008]

But in this case - we are assuming that the laicization (sorry spelling) has been accepted. In the case of Fr Cutie - it was not. This left Fr Cutie out of communion with the Church. It is only in cases where the laicization is accepted by the Bishop that it becomes valid and the priest is free of his vows. There is the rub.

Ok and for giggles lets stop focusing on the priests then - and for the sake of argument compare nuns (religiously consecrated and cannot leave their vows except for a very strict set of circumstances as you just stated) who leave their vows to get married compared to women that leave their families for another man.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

But in this case - we are assuming that the laicization (sorry spelling) has been accepted. In the case of Fr Cutie - it was not. This left Fr Cutie out of communion with the Church. It is only in cases where the laicization is accepted by the Bishop that it becomes valid and the priest is free of his vows. There is the rub.

Yes, thanks for the correction. Indeed, the Church had the authority to allow or deny the request for laicization of Fr. Cutie, and chose to deny it. Laicization would have meant two things, it would have released him from his promise of celibacy thus allowing him to get married, and would have released him from his priestly duties. A laicized priest is still a priest, but he is forbidden by the Church to celebrate Mass, consecrate the Eucharist, hear confessions, perform weddings etc. The Church chose not to release Fr. Cutie from his promise of celibacy, but he went ahead anyway and broke his promise and also converted away from the Catholic Church.

Back to your original point, a priest breaking his promise of celibacy commits less of a sin than a married person breaking his vow, and yet the priest will get more attention and will be more widely condemned by people. Thinking about these things only increased my appreciation for how serious a business marriage really is. Yet, it’s not that difficult (there’s not a stringent vetting process of who’s fit to marry and who is not) to walk down the aisle and say I do, without fully realizing the gravity of that decision and of those actions taken. Or, one may be a dissident Catholic, someone who fully understands what Catholic marriage is, but disagrees with some important aspect of it (meant for a lifetime, open to having children, etc), and yet chooses to have a Catholic wedding ceremony, which is the very definition of an invalid (null) marriage.

I guess that’s why we have so many declarations of nullity. People do get married unprepared, or play a game of getting married while disagreeing with and never intending to live up to their marital obligations.