Posted on 10/07/2003 3:10:44 PM PDT by sinkspur
Good question.
Personally, I have little respect, or use for those who justify their failings, defend them, gloss over them. I think this is what the homo crowd and the pro-abortion crowd do. They are foisting their personal predilections on society. They try to convince others to accept what others have always deemed wrong.
The laicized priest who had entered into an illicit relationship with a female is embracing his failing by breaking his sacred vows. When he marries the woman, I don't see it as a noble thing, or the "proper" thing to do, but rather an incredibly self-indulgent, highly scandalous decision.
I think the priest who keeps his indiscretions private does his flock a greater good, by not publicizing his quasi-apostacy. He is not, in addition to his adultery, adding on the sin of scandal, and explaining his failings away. So, given your two choices I would judge the laicized priest harsher, only because his misdeeds have a longer lasting and wider effect on those under his spiritual guidance. As to their eternal souls I am not qualified to give an opinion.
Also, I would like to add that it is sound policy for the Church, just as governments, businesses, and the military do, to issue sanctions against those who violate their contractual agreements. It is not uncommon for benefits to be sacrificed when someone opts for an early out. If a priest has lost his faith in his calling, if he has succumbed to the calls of his corporal being, then it is perfectly consistent that he accept the realities of the corporal world, which does not reward second thoughts.
So, the man who seeks to conform his life (though he sinned in the process) to the Church is somehow more "scandalous" than a priest who maintains a clandestine affair while still attempting to represent himself as a chaste man?
The man who acknowledges that he can only be chaste inside of a marriage is a greater sinner than the man who feigns chastity, but leads a life of unchastity.
Got it. I think the laicized priest makes you uncomfortable, whereas the whoring priest seems to be fine with you, as long as he doesn't renounce his vows publicly.
Are you sure? Are there more men studying for the diaconate than for the priesthood?
It's been my observation that deacons have way more leeway when it comes to self-determination. Once a priest is ordained, his life is pretty much dictated by the needs of his bishop. Deacons seem to be able to come and go as they please, move from state to state, dictate how much of a role they are able to have in the parish. Compared to a priest's commitment a deacon is not much more than a male church lady.
Not to degrade or insult, my point is that if your statement is true, more men become deacons because becoming a deacon doesn't require a whole heck of a lot, which would be perfectly consistent with the zeitgeist.
Not insulting at all.
Totally clueless, but not insulting.
I spend more time preparing my homilies, and my RCIA classes, than my pastor does.
He has more time, but, since my commitment doesn't require a whole heck of a lot, I have to squeeze in preparation between a full-time job and other commitments.
You don't know much about the permanent diaconate, Chuck, and even less about how most priests spend their time. And, I like you, so I'll stop right here.
Not quite what I said.....or meant anyway. The priest who renounces his vows in order to make permanent his illicit affair, does more harm to those who have been served by him than does the priest who's spiritual dependents are kept in the dark. I have not judged their sin. I made a point not to.
Interesting that you call him "man"; I call him priest. We may have differing views on the sacerdotal nature of our subject, thus our disagreement in this arena.
I think the laicized priest makes you uncomfortable, whereas the whoring priest seems to be fine with you, as long as he doesn't renounce his vows publicly.
Yes, the laicized priest makes me uncomfortable. After years of contemplating this commitment, after determining that his vocation, his true purpose in life was to become a celibate priest, he becomes completely sidetracked. Yes, it contradicts my notion of the way things are supposed to work.
I am not fine with a whoring priest. In my heirarchy of virtue, holy vows are more important than concupiscence.
If the Church laicizes the priest, then witnesses his marriage, it is no longer "an illicit affair." It is a marriage.
And I think you overestimate the number of Catholics who are scandalized by a priest who leaves the priesthood, and the effect it has on them.
Most Catholics are in favor of married priests anyway.
After years of contemplating this commitment, after determining that his vocation, his true purpose in life was to become a celibate priest, he becomes completely sidetracked. Yes, it contradicts my notion of the way things are supposed to work.
And yet the Church deals with this situation through laicization.
Celibacy is extrinsic to the priesthood. It always has been.
It seems the Church is much more compassionate toward these men than you are.
When? Be specific.
Yes, you are probably right. My statement was based on my very limited knowlege of the deacons I have been associated with. I know that they are free to up and move any time they please, and I know that they, noone else, determines what level of participation they contribute to the parish life. I contrasted this with the virtual feudal regimen an obedient priest labors under to explain why, if you are correct, more men prefer the diaconate to the priesthood. It is, in relative terms, a much easier tour of duty.
Isn't this true? If your employer transferred you to Tacoma, could the bishop stop you from going? If you told your pastor you were unable to give the RCIA classes anymore would he be able to coerce you into giving them?
It depends.
My pastor, whom I've known for 40 years, would let me take a hiatus, but would expect me to resume teaching after a period of time.
We have a deacon sitting on the sidelines in our parish because the pastor wants him to preach every fourth week, and he says he can't make that commitment.
Yes, deacons are able to move when they need to. But, the Church doesn't pay me for my services, so I'm not beholden financially. If I have to be self-supporting, then I'm going to have a bit more freedom than a priest who relies totally on the Church for his sustenance.
The deacons,especially those who are busy giving homilies,tending to the sick,presiding at funerals,baptisms and counselling the soon to be married as well as those looking to obtain annulments,and teaching in the RCIA programs,seem to be anxious to perform every function of the priests.This must be an attempt to publicly perform almost as a priest. It won't be long until we hear the brainwashed laity,programmed by lazy priests and ambitious deacons,most of whom just want to destroy that nasty old,intrusive Catholic Church,start questioning why deacons can't be priests since they do everything the priests do anyway.
The congenial,collegial bishops will put on their long faces,and nod and dither and send off a paper to Rome requesting the Vatican look at the ordination of these invaluable,capable men,who have endeared themselves to lay and the ordained clergy alike. While waiting for the answer they will give the go ahead for the deacons to assume more and more priestly duties.
Shortly thereafter,they will pooint out how these married deacons are able to perform all of the functions of priests and it is hardly just to not permit priests to marry,and while we're at it why not women. Soon,the priesthood will be open to somebody,anybody,everybody.and,just so they don't offend anyone they are going to stop asking candidates if they are Catholic or not,since the question would indicate that perhaps the priesthood was not open to all and that would hardly be inclusive now,would it?
I have no doubt that the greater number of deacons are men striving to serve God and are intelligent,holy men.I see the beautiful,thoughtful comments of Thomas More and Tantumergo frequently. However,just as priests and bishops did not suddenly lose the faith but were instead selected and brought in one by one, by crafty men,who only sought to bring down the Church,in like manner,the deacons'programs are developing.
Rather the opposite is true? These men are ambitious and want to coopt the priesthood to fit their lifestyle, without making the kind of sacrifices centuries of predecessors have made. Very interesting.
I am old enough to remember when Communism was a threat to our country. One of my professors,in about 1958,at a secular university said:Communism will never prevail because of two things.the universal Roman Catholic Church and the healthy middle class in America.So I always kept my antenna up and watched those two indicators.
Several years later,I read a book that said,there was a concerted effort to destroy the Church. This time it would be done from within. The book said that the destroyers would use two tactics. One was to corrupt the priesthood and the other to destroy the papacy. I see that taking place right now,so I pray alot. I know the Church will be protected til the consummation of the world,but it doesn't say in all places,so I pray that we can keep the Church in this country intact until we get through these trying times.
I didn't mean to dismiss your theory because,it holds true for many,many deacons.I apologise.
Oh no. No apology necessary. You have expanded on my thoughts and I am grateful
You have raised an important red flag. These deacons could have a lot of influence, and may be influencing the laity about ending manditory celibacy, if what we are told is true: that most Catholics would welcome a married priesthood. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but the time could not be better to agitate for such a change.
There are no similarities between the two cases.Yes there are. Both appeared to be valid at first blush, and the participants all treated it as valid. A priest acted as a priest, but later asked to have his vow set aside. A husband acted as a husband, but later asked to have his vow set aside (or annulled, for the hyper technical). Technicalities aside, both took vows that were later violated/changed/whatever, and went on to essentially leave that vocation, enter into another, etc.
I know we can point out legalities that are different, and to you these things are key, but to me they are not. The statement I made that you seem to object to was that I would not feel as much trust for a man who went back on vows like this. For me, that applies to MOST annulments and MOST of these ex-priests.
That the vow itself is a necessary sacramental element to one, and not to the other, would seem to be to be a bit of a nitpick in the context of this discussion. IMHO we are not discussing Sacramental validity, but the violation of a vow.One cannot violate a vow from which one has been released. It is a logical impossibility.
Well, one can violate it before one is released from it. This is of course precisely what I mentioned in the post you responded to. In fact, you admit this below. Therefore it is not a logical impossibility.
Your objection is strained.
I’ve been aware of the circumstances behind only about a dozen former priests who’ve been released. In each and every one of those cases though, the priest was “dating” a woman before being released. Without getting into the details of what is or isn’t dating, I think that is enough to violate their vows. Accordingly, I have to disagree with you. There are exceptions, of course, but many of these men do violate their vows before they are released.It is impossible to validly infer anything about laicization cases in general from twelve annecdotes. You need to take a case statistical inference.
You really do what to make this a hyper technical discussion don’t you? Do you have ANY evidence to the contrary?
I didn’t think so. I see two ways to proceed here. First, you can recognize what everyone who has substantial contact with priests already knows. Most leave because they are already in a relationship. Or, you can provide some proof to the contrary.
A mere complaint that I haven’t provided a statistical study is insufficient, when you provide absolutely no counter evidence, nor do you even contend counter evidence exists.
Certainly, if a priest was dating before being released from his vows, he violated them and sinned.
Obviously.
This is a strange statement though, given that above you claimed that “One cannot violate a vow from which one has been released. It is a logical impossibility.” Yet here you admit that one could have violated the vow, and there is evidence that many of these priests have violated this vow.
You have no idea if that was the case with this man. You have absolutely no basis upon which to accuse him. You are dangerously close to committing the sin of slander if you persist.
If either of us is committing slander, it is you who slander me. Please show me where I have accused “this man” of anything please. All I have said about “this man” is that I would tend to distrust a man who took a vow to God but decided he couldn’t do it. Frankly, I didn’t even make that comment specific to “this man.”
Your charge of slander is unfounded. Please review my comments before making inflammatory accusations.
patent
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.