So, while it is not a dogma (i.e. theological) in nature, it is canonical within the Latin Rite. Sitetest says in #97 that the "Latins are oh, so rigid about dogma. If it's dogma, there are no exceptions. Period." But it seems to me that the canon law is equally inflexible when it comes to a Latin Rite priest, so for all practical purpose it is "dogma." The consequence of violating this rule is sacrilege (according to Catholic Encyclopedia). Anything that invalidates the Mysteries (Sacraments) is pretty serious stuff. Based on this thinking Pope Gregory VII prohibited married priests from saying Mass and people from hearing their Mass (because the sacraments would be invalid). How does the Church in the West reconcile this rule (that unchaste priests commit sacrilege) with married Catholic clergy?
The fact that some Protestant converts who are already married are allowed to be ordained falls under a different criterium -- and a double standard if one really wants to be fair about it!
Obviously, the converts are accepted under different vows -- for married people can't take the vows of chastity and celibacy! So, we have two mechanism of ordination -- one that strictly and without exception applies to "generic" Latin Rite priesthood and a different one for the "imports" from heretic branches of Western Christianity.
Celibacy is not just "preferred" as Kolokotronis seems to suggest -- and I agree -- but mandated and subject to the sin of sacrilege in one Rite, while completely "legal" in another Rite of the same (Roman Catholic) Church. How can one and the same thing be sacrilege in one case and perfectly valid in another? What is the guide? How can priests have different vows? How does that promote unity in the Church?
Dear kosta50,
"Based on this thinking Pope Gregory VII prohibited married priests from saying Mass and people from hearing their Mass (because the sacraments would be invalid). How does the Church in the West reconcile this rule (that unchaste priests commit sacrilege) with married Catholic clergy?"
That's easy. Because of itself, the marital relationship is chaste. So married priests violate need not violate any rule of chastity.
The consequences for violating the rule imposed by the pope were consequences for the violation of the rule, not for unchastity. We Catholics believe that the pope may bind in matters of discipline, and what is bound on earth is bound in Heaven.
Thus, the pope thought that celibacy was a good idea, enough of one to make a binding disciplinary rule about it. Violation of the rule incurred certain consequences, as defined by the rule.
The offense is violation of binding discipline, not unchastity. Thus, a married priest not bound to the rule of celibacy commits no evil act.
That one man might be bound to the rule, and another not is further evidence that the Catholic Church in no way considers this dogma. If it were dogma or doctrine, it would admit of no exceptions, no married man in the Catholic Chuch could be ordained to the priesthood.
"Obviously, the converts are accepted under different vows -- for married people can't take the vows of chastity and celibacy!"
False on two counts. First, a married couple might rarely take a vow of celibacy, perhaps late in life. It is not usually encouraged, but it is not impossible, either.
Second, no one need take a vow of chastity. All Christians, all human beings, are bound by natural law to be chaste. That is to say, all human beings are bound by natural law not to engage in sexual activity at all, except within marriage. Marital sex is chaste. A married couple who are faithful to each other, who are welcoming of new life, who do not contracept or perform unnatural acts, who mind their imaginations, thoughts, and consciences, but who engage in the marital act frequently, may well be completely and perfectly chaste.
"Celibacy is not just 'preferred' as Kolokotronis seems to suggest -- and I agree -- but mandated and subject to the sin of sacrilege in one Rite, while completely 'legal' in another Rite of the same (Roman Catholic) Church. How can one and the same thing be sacrilege in one case and perfectly valid in another? What is the guide? How can priests have different vows? How does that promote unity in the Church?"
It is similar to other things, as well. Though valid, leavened bread is illicit for use in the Sacrament in the Latin Rite. We use unleavened only. Though valid, unleavened bread is illicit in all the Eastern Rites. These customs and traditions are from very early in Church life, and the Church has always recognized valid and appropriate differences.
How can the Orthodox permit some married men to marry (those who will be what we call diocesan or secular priests) but not others (those who would be monks)? How can one and the same thing be sacrilege in one case and perfectly valid in another? What is the guide? How can Orthodox priests have different vows? How does that promote unity in the Church?
;-)
sitetest
Of course it's a double standard. There are bishops who will not allow priests who have been laicized (relieved of their celibacy promise) and who have married, to have any role whatsoever in a parish, including acting as a lector, a eucharistic minister, or to teach in the RCIA.
Men who have been ministers of the Gospel, and who are in good standing with the Church, cannot be a minister of any kind if they marry.
Thankfully, John Paul II is not so callous, though he laicizes few priests today.