I forgot to point out to you that I am talking about the Vatican Roman Catholic Church of the Latin Rite:
Even though this is not apparently connected with my concern, nonetheless, unless I am mistaken – please correct me then – here are some matters about married men being accepted to the Catholic clergy, namely in the Latin Rite of the Vatican Roman Catholic Church:
Please look up the Code of Canon Law for the Catholic Church, the Vatican Roman one of the Latin Rite, on those points where you think that I am mistaken.
For all you who have posted in this thread, thanks a lot. May I please invite you – if you have not yet done so, to give your reactions or observations to these two paragraphs from ‘60 Minutes’. If you can accommodate me, please at least for the second paragraph can you do me a rewriting in your own words of the paragraph, even with a few words so that the gist of the paragraph is expressed adequately.
The sex abuse crisis, tainting the priesthood’s image for would-be recruits, is exacerbating another problem in the priesthood: the sheer lack of priests. “ [Making celibacy optional] would allow…a far wider pool of potential recruits…We’re running out of good priests,” says McBrien. Another factor in the demise of mandatory celibacy, according to McBrien, is that many priests, especially in Latin America and Africa, ignore the rule anyway.
“Celibacy isn’t practiced there in large measure,” says McBrien. “The people understand that the priest has his ‘wife’…his children, his family. They accept it,” he says. The Church chooses to ignore that situation, says McBrien.
I need your observtions or rewriting, specially the second paragraph, and specially the rewriting; it will be a great help to me. I shall be most obliged.
Being the original proponent of points #2 and 5 that Bricker refuted, isn’t it incumbent on you to provide citations for what you said? Show us where married priests aren’t allowed to be conjugal anymore.
How many times have I provided canon law references to you already?
In any event, I cannot provide a negative. There is no canon law that forbids conjugal relations in the case of married priests. I cannot quote a negative. There is no canon law that creates a “second class priesthood”.
If you contend there are such laws, it falls to you to document it.
About married men becoming priests and not allowed to use the conjugal privilege, I learned that in my college days from father mentor in theology classes. He said that in that discipline married men in a way cannot congratulate themselves that they are priests and they can have sex. Be patient I am looking up ‘cites’ to enlighten us on this kind of discipline at least durng the days of my college theology professors and my college days. Did you study in a Catholic university? You never heard that?
About previously married men converting to Catholicism and becoming priests in the Catholic Church enjoying some kind of second-class priestly citizenship, namely, not allowed all the ministerial roles of all-the-time celibate priests, I read that somewhere in the Internet when I was looking for materials to show Brick that I am not lying in saying that there are fornicating priests and there are bishops not removing them but putting up with them for reasons of their own in their conscience (bishops’s) – ‘putting up’ as in police chief not removing rogue policemen because they are still needed to guard the neighborhood and to see to the smooth traffic, however they be on the take in other shenanigans, not that they approve of such rogue policemen. (Oh please, don’t insist that I have to present ‘cites’ for that statement on policemen on the take… that is an honest stock knowledge in my mind).
Something personal, if you don’t mind, I fear that my message board life is getting to be nothing but looking up support for what I in good faith write.
At least here I have put a disclaimer (is that the word?) at the start; otherwise someone will accuse me of being a ‘stinkin liar’.
I don’t know about the agenda of other peoples here. For my own part, I must admit essentially that I do enjoy contributing my honest opinions on subjects brought up here or I myself bring up, hoping that if someone might be interested he would find another opinion or view. There has never been any intention of giving out false information or insincere opinion (meaning not in my heart and mind entertained by mself for some kind of a conviction based on some reasons – very well qualified? – one can’t be too careful…).
I should just have disregarded the accusation; but I thought that it would be a challenge to unravel the invalidity of that accusation.
Be patient, to everyone here interested in this matter between Brick and me, I am getting my thoughts together and will present them here, to show that Brick’s accusation of my lying is not a valid one.
If Brick is around, please, can you rewrite in your own words the following excerpt from ‘60 Minutes’, even just the gist of what you think is the principal message there.
To all here who have visited this thread, God bless you and God bless us all.
And please do me a very special favor, rewrite that excerpt and post it here.
I almost forget, I am not propounding that married men becoming priests should abstain from sex, and not that such men should be employed but not to all the ministerial roles of all-the-time celibate priests.
If it’s up to me, I would even allow married women into the priesthood with all the privileges of marriage intact, and access to all the priestly functions and privileges.
Yes, I did go to a Catholic university, and one thing I’ve learned is to avoid presuming that anything from a priest’s mouth is de facto dogma. Some priests have an anti-church hierarchy agenda, mind you, and have no problem voicing their defiance of the church.
No, I’ve never heard that. The other thing I’ve learned in my Catholic studies is to go straight to the source. “Some priest told me” isn’t good enough: I need to see something from an actual church document, such as the Catechism, the Code of Canon Law, or a Papal Encyclical. You wanna post something in good faith, fine, but don’t be surprised when your long-held beliefs are suddenly challenged on the basis that nobody else has heard it before.
I guess we are three good friends, alumni of Catholic universities.
So, let’s not be harsh toward each other.
If my words are somehow alarming to you, I think I have told some people here in some of my posts that I have the peculiar gift of “Making enemies and antagonizing people”. I should write a book like the reverse of Carnegie’s, namely, “How to make enemies and antagonize people”.
About married men being ordained to the priesthood and not anymore allowed to use their conjugal privilege, I went through my old college notes, and found in them a reference to Canon 1114 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law:
There might be other pertinent texts in the old code. I have to look up the corresponding places if at all present in the present Code. Such men are not converted married priests from the Anglican or Episcopalian Churches, but original Catholics, married, who wish to enter the priestly life and ministry.
I have to look up more ‘cites’, though. But for those already married converts I seem to gather from Internet materials that they could continue with their marital acts.
About these converts being second class citizens in regard to the ministerial functions, I have the following ‘cites’ which you might find interesting; of course they have to do with the individual policies of particular national conferences, something like that:
Now, about that ‘very important matter’ of lying, can we just put it this way:
“You say that I was lying, and I say that I am not in my conscience.”
Can we just leave it at that?
Or do we really want to go on and on with me trying to prove that you did not make a valid accusation, and you maintaining that I am dodging, and in the meantime I keep on pouring over the Internet and my college notes and books to bring out more unsavory matters of Mother Church, though however postgraduate I am I do love her.
Let me know. OK?
And God bless us all.
About married men priests and their sexual debitum, I stand corrected in anyting you feel that I should be corrected in. OK?
Same also with the second class citizenship of converted married Anglican priests. OK?
As we have all known in our campus days, “In dubiis libertas, in certis unitas, et in omnibus charitas”. Something like that.
Susma Rio Sep
P.S: This letter is addressed to all parties here who might be interested.
Of course, Canon 6 of the current Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law provides
So even if I gave a rat’s patootie about this particular issue, you are quoting a law than has no particular force and effect.
If you now agree that Church authorities do not practice “looking the other way” or “closing both eyes” at priests that are invalidly married in violation of Canons 194, 1041, and the like, I am happy to let the matter drop.
If you persist in the truth of that statement, then I must persist in demanding either a correction or a citation.
From my stock knowledge, which stock can be a bit old, but many things are better upon aging. The official text of Catholic legislations and doctrinal definitions is in Latin. But I will just the same put in my two cents worth of what is meant by ‘married’ and ‘celibate’ in writings of authors who know what they are talking about, because they are professional experts in Canon Law and/or theologians with competence in canonico/moral areas.
How do I know these things and have them in my stock knowledge? Well, in my home we have priests from the university and from parishes coming in and out as though they live there. They talk and we talk with them. That’s how I get to know about the more arcane facts and figures and going-ons in the local Catholic theater and also further out. When I was in college with those fathers in the university, I was encouraged to enroll in more theology and philosophy classes than necessary, because the fathers there thought I was a good prospect to join them.
Now, here is my understanding about the English terms ‘married’ and ‘celibate’ in writings of more knowledgeable people:
“Married” means having gone through a contract recognizied by the the government as binding a man and a woman to common life and cohabitation, meaning very importantly they have sex access together, and they live together.
Now with the Catholic Church, that kind of marriage is not enough for the intention of God (the Catholic one, that is); if you are a Catholic, you have to get married before a priest; otherwise you are not married in God’s eyes.
“Celibate” means not going into marriage of any kind; so a celibate priest is one that is not qualified for marriage.
There is the distinction between celibacy and chastity, namely, you can have the latter without the former, as when you are single, being a Catholic you are required to be chaste but not to be celibate because you can look forward to marriage.
Now listen carefully, if you are a priest bound to celibacy, not only are you not qualified for marriage (even though you can get married civilly before any government official authorized to officiate civil marriages), you are also bound to chastity, so that every violation of chastity is not only a purely unchaste act but also an infringement of the obligation of celibacy.
That is why priests who convince women that they just don’t have to get married but can have sex, so that they don’t transgress against celibacy, that reasoning is not correct; because the enacted discipline of the Catholic Church provides that every unchaste act of a priest is also against celibacy, and sacrilegious.
You ask: “married” priest cannot, by definition, be “celibate”, as “celibate” means “unmarried.”
You have a good point there.
As I said earlier, an already married Catholic man can be ordained on the consent of the wife and by the special grant of the Vatican. Then he has to abstain from sex on the obligation of celibacy, which also prevents him from remarrying should he become a widower. So, in his case, celibacy is clearly seen as imposed chastity or sexless state and impediment to future marriage. “Unmarried” has a prospective sense in regrad to future
marriage, and a retrospective sense in regard to use of sex from the already extant marriage.
With the case of a non-Catholic priest or pastor already married and being received into the Catholic priesthood, it seems to depend upon the conditions set in the grant by the Vatican. The Vatican can just allow the new Catholic priest to continue with his marriage in an actively extensive capacity, sex and family life; or it can set the condition that he abstain from sex, or just encourage him to practice the kind of chastity practiced by Joseph and Mary, like living together as brother and sister.
Now, to encourage is not to impose. You get the picture? Because Catholic spiritual theology always teaches that sex and sacramental acts like handling the Eucharist don’t go very sacredly together.
Now, here is where the celibacy of the ex Protestant now Catholic priest comes to play, namely, when he becomes a widower, no more marriage for him. “Unmarried” has a prospective sense of not marrying again upon widowhood.
I hope that my contribution here is helpful to you. And please, obtain better and more information from the local Fr. Canon Law expert in the diocesan chancery.
You know, the Vatican Roman Catholic Church of the Latin Rite has been around for two thousand years without interruptions. It is the biggest Christian group in present history. So there are two thousand years of legislative enactments, doctrinal pronouncements, and pastoral experiences with their subsequent disciplinary impositions. Thus it must know a number of things better than other churches or organizations on earth; otherwise how does it manage to survive two thousand years and to continue to ‘grow’?
“Salvo meliore iudicio”, something like that.
Would it be out of bounds to ask you for some favor in my personal capacity as one poster brother to another?
If you think that it is out of bounds for any reasons whatsover, I will respect your silence.
My original problem started in that thread on Catholics and Anal Sex. Our good friend, Brick, there accused me of lying (start with page 2 and onward).
As I told someone here I should have just reacted in silence to Brick’s accusation. But being a person who is always trying to unravel things, I began analyzing exactly what Brick is accusing me of?
So I made a new thread on What is a lie; then another one on Priests fornicating, bishops not removing them, then still another one, the present one, on Married priests in the program Sixty Minutes.
Should I now stop with new tjhreads to examine the issues involved in the accusation of lying against me, or should I continue…
I am working on what is truth, what is mind, what is reality, what is religious attachment, what is the purpose of speech, what is human motivation? etc., all without recourse to other people’s writings, but solely on my own observation and understanding, expecting to see reactions that might contribute to my knowledge and learning, and also honestly that Brick would see that I was not lying in my post in reaction to Kalhoun’s.
Just between you and me, even though the rest of people in these boards here who chance upon this message are also reading – and I don’t mind, trusting you don’t mind either, I want everyone to know that I really regret my reaction to Kalhoun’s post about married priests in that program of Sixty minutes; but I was not lying insofar as I know what lying is and I am cognizant of my conscience.
Thanks for your patience and I am glad to have met you in that thread on War is stupid and insane.
I hope you would not be annoyed with this request on you. Should you react in silence, I will understand. Just please try to abstain from harsh language against me. Snub me if you have to but don’t call me unkind things.
Honestly, I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking (something about the nature of lies, I think), but the conventions of Great Debates requires I not insult you personally. In the war thread, I said some of your statements were a bit nutty, but that’s fair game.
As for Catholocism, I think some of their restrictions on sex are similiarly nutty, but my earlier comment in this thread was prompted by a minor pet peeve of mine: the incorrect use of television titles.
Anglican priest converts have to be ordained absolutely on passing over to the Catholic Church in order to serve in the ministry.
Why this concession to ex Anglican priests to continue in their conugal life, and not to married Catholic men who want to enter the priesthood? My suspicion is namely to reward them for their propaganda worth to the Catholic Church.
Why then don’t Catholic priests convert to the Anglican Church or Episcopalian Church in order to get married and continue being in the ministry (of the new churches)? They do.
The question – and I am still trying to get some official post 1983 Code documentation – is whether married Catholic men ordained to priesthood with dispensation from having a wife, are allowed to continue their conjugal life. I am almost sure, no. That was the discipline before. Proof that such is still the discipline now namely: that there are no long line of married Catholic men applying for dispensation in order to receive sacred orders (because they can’t afterwards continue with their conjugal life).
With the ex-Anglican or Episcopalian priests, the swap is sensible: for the propaganda in favor of the Catholic Church they get to continue in their conjual life. (But really?)
For married Catholic men ordained priests and now allowed to continue their conjugal life, this is a distinct development in the direction of accommodation from the previous discipline of obligatory continence after ordination.
Nonetheless, I guess it must be very rare for the Vatican to grant dispensation for married Catholic men to be ordained and still continue with their conjugal life. Otherwise, Catholic men not disposed to accept the obligation of celibacy should marry first, and then afterwards apply for dispensation to enter the priesthood.
Do we have readily accessible statistics of married Catholic men obtaining such dispensation and then being ordained to the priesthood?
If the dispensation should be a routine formality, then this is the best deal for Catholic men who desire the priesthood, and yet do not relish the prospect of lifelong singlehood and continence.
Just the same, I am still looking for official documentation.
(Please refer to that thread, ‘Sex and Catholic priests’, closed by our good moderator, Gaudere, with the instruction to place it somewhere else of a cognate relationship, which I think the present one will do. Apologies to everyone for the inconvenience and for the annoyance of another thread. Shall we continue from that point…)
Thanks for your patience and forbearance, everyone here.
This topic in a way has been discussed for the last almost two thousand years, and still being discussed: books, articles, and messages being issued continually. Can we still say something new pro or anti? Perhaps not pro or anti but academically or to use my word, ‘clinically’.
Actually I was not into this subject earlier, until in that thread on Catholics and anal sex, where Kalhoun brought up the question of ‘married priests’ in the program ‘Sxity Minutes’. I guess those of you following the discussion know of the history of my involvement here.
Before anything further, please try to see that I am kind of starting a new approach to the question: not to advocate the pro or the anti side of the question; but just to study it as when we study say animal incest.
Just for comic relief, I know of a very good Christian couple who make sure that their pet dogs don’t inbreed among themselves which are related by paternity and maternity lineage. Ha ha ha.
As I say in my original post above:
Let us all pretend that we are Martians as described above. Then after we have studied the phenomenon of celibacy, the controversies raging, penetrating into the core of the matter, we might be able to give some suggestions and even proposals to the Catholic Church, both the ones on top and the ranks and files below, how to achieve some kind of workable arrangement in light of the reality of human life.
What then are the advantages on the earthly realm of celibacy for the Catholic Church at large, for the priests who are pastors of souls, and for the other aspects of a corporate body composed of men and acts and properties.
I say earthly realm, not the spiritual domain of ascetical and mystical life, not the presuppositions of religious faith, the teachings and imposed disciplines of the Catholic Church, but purely on what the Constitution says about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, both for the corporate entity that is the Catholic Church and but specially for the priests as individuals who are bound to celibacy and yet at the same time are biological beings with all living and active functions of various physiological systems.
I think Mace gets what I am driving at, with his contribution about property succession:
Nothing to do with spirituality or getting to heaven or being more noble, etc., but just plainly that celibacy is good to the financial integrity of the Catholic Church.
What other advantages can we see in the observance of celibacy?
What about that a celibate clergy will be free of all kinds of medical problems of the STD kinds (sexually transmitted diseases, not “Sacrae Theologiae Doctor”).
And a celibate clergy will be free of the hen-pecked husband syndrome, and all its attendant difficulties for his ministry.
These are negative boons, but for being negative they are not less beneficial to the body politic of the Catholic Church and the wellbeing of the individual priests.
So, can we just proceed along this line, and not go into arguments pro or anti from the standpoint of religious faith, etc. I have mentioned some advantages on the earthly realm, of course there are also disadvantages on the earthly realm, for every advantage.
As we proceed along, not in the spirit of debate, but with the intention of sharing observations and insights, we might be able to understand the Catholic Church better and the plights of individual priests, both celibate and also the incontinent ones, and likewise those agitating for an optional celibacy.
As far as I know, this question has not been really studied as strenuously and as impartially as say the question of I.Q. and race.
As I noted in the other thread, the statement provided is a misunderstanding that reverses the actual situation.
Kings were bestowing church lands on bishops who passed on the land to their heirs. Part of the correction was the more rigorous implementation of the rule of celibacy that was already 650 years old. The more fundamental change (and the one used in the Eastern Rites) is simply to deny that the king or the bishop (or the local pastor) actually owns the property, which actually belongs to the church, in general. In the U.S., for example, diocese are established as legal entities with the bishop as the executive. However, the bishop is not allowed to own the property–he is the administrator. Similarly, each parish is legally owned by the diocese, rather than by the pastor or even the congregation. Since no member of the clergy has ownership, there is no issue regarding the heirs of any cleric “inheriting” the property of the diocese.
While the church-wide imposition of celibacy was enacted as a part of the reforms, the removal of the ownership from the hands of any individual rendered that reform more symbolic than necessary.