Posted on 03/26/2011 12:59:03 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
“It was not until the 1200’s under Pope Innocent II that the church rules changed to only prohibit married priests.”
Married priests are not prohibited.
In fact, there are many married priests right now.
Watch out, you’re now probably gonna be accused of defending the “pederasts” in the “priestcraft.”
More on the history of married priests. Most Catholics have never heard of this.
“Of the numerous synods convoked throughout Europe during the eleventh and twelfth centuries to enforce with rigour the neglected law, the most notable are the First Lateran Council (1123) and the Second Lateran Council (1139), considered as ecumenical in Roman tradition. Lateran I made into general law the prohibition of cohabiting with wives (c. 7). Lateran II, c. 7, reiterating the declaration of the Council of Pisa (1135), also declared marriages contracted subsequent to ordination to be not only prohibited, but non-existent (... matrimonium non esse censemus). At times, this Council is wrongly interpreted as having introduced for the first time the general law of celibacy, with only unmarried men being admitted to the priesthood. Yet what the Council was doing, in a more pointed way, was re-emphasizing the law of continence (... ut autem lex continentiae et Deo placens munditia in ecciesiasticis personis et sacris personis dilatetur...)60 Subsequent legislation, however, continues to deal with questions relating to married men ordained secundum legem, not contra legem.
The principle sources for this legislation are the Quinque Compilationes Antiquae and the decretals of Gregory IX. These decretals form part of the Corpus Iuris Canonici, a work completed in the fourteenth century and which influenced law-making until the appearance of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. From these sources, we learn that from the time of Alexander III (1159-1181) married men were not, as a rule, allowed to have ecclesiastical benefices; a lower cleric who married would have his benefice withdrawn, but not his right to subdiaconate ordination on the condition that he discontinues his marital life. A son of a priest (considered legitimate if born before ordination) was prohibited from succeeding to his father’s benefice. Young wives and the wives of bishops were to agree at the time of ordination to enter a convent.61 The rights of the wife were also protected.
In 1322 Pope John XXII insisted that no one bound in marriage — even if unconsummated — could be ordained unless there was full knowledge of the requirements of Church law. If the free consent of the wife had not been obtained, the husband, even if already ordained, was to be reunited with his wife, exercise of his ministry being barred.62 One of the factors that must have contributed to the eventual universal practice of ordaining only unmarried men would have been the assumption that a wife would not want to give up her marital rights. Hence the irregularitas ex defectu libertatis of a married man, which became a formal impediment (impedimentum simplex) only in the twentieth century with the promulgation of the Codex Iuris Canonici (1917), was not due to the marriage bond per se. It was due to this assumption of unwillingness and inability to separate. From 1917, all cases of dispensation from the impediment were reserved to the Holy See. But those receiving dispensation were not authorized by that fact to continue with marital relations.63
The decretals and other parts of the Corpus Iuris Canonici provided the guidelines for synodal activity, concubinage being a persistent problem for the authorities. Opposition to the law of the Church was not lacking and occasionally well-respected figures argued for a mitigation of the law to help solve the problems of clerical indiscipline (Panormitanus, at the time of the Council of Basle [1417-1437], for example). The example of the practice of the East was given as a precedent, although it is unlikely that there was a proper understanding of this discipline.64 Similar calls for mitigation were heard at the time of the Reformation. They included humanists such as Erasmus, theologians such as Cajetan de Vio, and secular authorities with pragmatic and political aims in mind: Charles V, Ferdinand I, Maximilian II. The crisis precipitated by the Reformers was doctrinal as well as disciplinary. Zwingli and Martin Luther made the abolition of clerical celibacy a key element to their reform, but this was also related to the dismantling of the traditional theology of the sacramental priesthood.
In the third and final period of the Council of Trent (1562-3), and despite considerable pressures, all suggestions that the Catholic Church should modify and mitigate its rules of celibacy were rejected. In Session XXIV on 11 November 1563, the Fathers upheld the prohibition of clerical marriage (c. 9), adding (concerning the difficulties): «For God would not deny the gift to those who duly ask for it (the gift of chastity), nor allow us to be tempted beyond our strength.» They also rejected the thesis that the marital state should be considered better than that of celibacy (c. l0).65 The Council, in Session XXIII, also voted in favour of founding seminaries to prepare candidates from their youth for the celibate life. The discipline of continence by this time had meant in practice that only an unmarried man would be ordained. This is also shown in the discussions of the Council, for example when one theologian, Desiderius de S. Martino, concerned by the shortage of priests, suggested the possibility of ordaining married men provided the wives gave consent and that they and their husbands lived in continence. But the measure was not deemed expedient.66
The decrees of the Council were not immediately accepted in all nations but with time they did bring about a general observance of the law of celibacy, thanks in no small measure to their provisions for the better training of the clergy. The Enlightenment brought fresh assaults against clerical celibacy and after the First Vatican Council, the Old Catholics, separating themselves from Rome, abolished the rule. Despite the pressures on the Catholic Church to relax the law of celibacy, it has always resisted. Pope Benedict XV declared, in his Consistorial Allocution of 16 December 1920, that the Church considered celibacy to be of such importance that it could never abolish it.67 Following Vatican II, the Church has made an exception for married deacons of mature age and for individual former non-Catholic clergymen, following a precedent set by Pope Pius XII.68”
"Brian Burch, co-founder and president of the Catholic-based think-tank Fidelis, spoke with ZENIT about the results of the election, and why he thinks a majority of Catholics voted for Democratic candidate Barack Obama, an admitted supportor of abortion rights..."
So Burch got it wrong, too?
lol. Laughably pathetic. If Roman Catholics deny they voted for Obama by 54% in 2008, they're very likely to make the same mistake again in 2012.
The Roman Catholic church has been filled with homosexuals and pedophiles for centuries. To deny that fact is to keep it going.
Your posts are full of unsubstantiated assertions. Could you please provide an iota of evidence?
Funny, the last person to insist on the distinction between the city of Rome and the Vatican cabal was Petronski.
Hmmm....
I know. But I'm defending a fair trial. There are enemies of the Church on all sides - including inside AND outside, including judges. Fair trial. Truth.
ActuaLly, i agrEe eXactly with the Moderator’s possibly Unbiased and smaRt choice to delete the inaPpropriate posts that i Had made mYself.
Catholic World News ^ | 8/19/2010
Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:22:04 PM by markomalley
48% of the nation’s Catholics now identify themselves as Democrats, while 43% identify themselves as Republicans, according to a survey released August 19 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. In 2006, 52% of Catholics identified themselves as Democrats, while 39% identified themselves as Republicans. White and Hispanic Catholics have become increasingly divided on party affiliation. In 2006, 49% of white Catholics and 63% of Hispanic Catholics called themselves Democrats, while 43% of white Catholics and 30% of Hispanic Catholics called themselves Republicans. Four years later, 41% of white Catholics and 71% of Hispanic Catholics call themselves Democrats, while 50% of white Catholics and 22% of Hispanic Catholics called themselves Republicans Among the survey’s other findings (survey results for Catholics did not differ greatly from Americans overall):
* only 37% of Catholics believe that churches should express views on political and social issues (vs. 45% in 2006)
* 64% of Catholics believe it is important for members of Congress to have strong religious beliefs
* 71% of Catholics believe that religion is losing its influence on public life (vs. 61% a year ago)
* 62% of Catholics believe that religion is losing its influence on government leaders (vs. 40% a year ago) A year ago, 51% of Catholics said that President Obama-- who was baptized in the United Church of Christ at the age of 27-- is a Christian, while 10% said he is a Muslim and 36% said they did not know. Only 32% of Catholics now say he is Christian, while 18% say he is Muslim and 46% do not know.
But it’s posts from you and your FRiends that are being pulled for breaking the rules.
Thanks for your post.
But you can correct the record a thousand times, and the same libelous venom will be posted a thousand and one times.
Best to ignore.
I’m betting Petronski chewed some of these Prod posters up.
Do you remember how tall the figures on the top of the front of St Peters are?
IIRC, 14 feet
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Well, not everyone. Roman Catholicism isn't losing influence on democrats. Roman Catholicism elected Obama.
White US Catholics move toward GOP, Hispanic Catholics toward Democrats
This is bad news for our country. For every one person who joins the RCC, four Roman Catholics leave the RCC. The RCC in this country is bleeding members. The membership statistics for RCs in this country remain flat because this exodus of Roman Catholics from the RCC is only offset by the huge influx of Hispanics.
We both know why.
What a pantsload.
Well, which is it? A "fact", or "most likely"?
It is evident that you harbor great emnity toward the Catholic Church from the tenor of what you have written on this thread.
Unlike so many other denominations, the Roman Catholic Church has maintained its stand against homosexual unions, abortion, and a host of other behaviours now welcomed with open arms by other churches or even incorporated openly and willingly into their clergy.
It is written that "none is without sin". So it is for organizations. The Catholic Church fights enemies, new and old, infiltrators in the ranks and those without. That for decades, in their failings, a few members of the church chose to deal with the relatively few problems within the clergy without people like you damning the rest of the members of the Church through 'guilt by association' is not cause to damn those who neither knew about nor approved of the alleged actions of those members of the clergy.
There are queer Republicans, too, but this does not make the Republican Party a rookery of homosexuality, nor does it imply that all Republicans are tolerant of that behaviour.
Presently, any claim of wrongdoing is treated by the church with the presumed guilt of the accused--guilty until proven innocent. Imagine yourself in the same position, where any claim of wrongdoing was treated that way. Imagine the ongoing homosexual assault on the Church using accusations to paralyze the Church.
Apparently, you would be all for that, despite the fact that the Catholic Church is the one major organization on the planet which has stood steadfast in the way of the homosexualists and the abortionists and the pedophiles, in spite of a few infiltrators.
Perhaps you prefer those denominations who have embraced the homosexual abomination and made it policy to have those who embrace (if not actively practice) it preach from the pulpit, who have decided to pollute the Gospel with false doctrine and proclaim it as acceptable, and who have decided to desecrate the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony by performing 'gay marriages'.
I have not researched the number of people who may have been accused of crime later who went to any school I went to at the same time, and would be challenged to name more than a handful of my classmates at any of those schools, even though some of them were pretty small.
That the attorney and the accused were in the same seminary at the same time does not necessarily give cause for recusal/removal.
BTW, does anyone know why Petronski doesn’t post here anymore?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.