Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sinkspur
I agree with your points entirely. Historically there is NO basis for denying ordination to married men. Heck, St. Peter was married! St. Paul was not, but he specifically said that *his personal committment" did not need to be applied to everyone.

Good that you mentioned the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church. They are often forgotten entirely in the US, but in reality there are 21 other rites besides the Latin Rite, and to my knowledge virtually ALL of them allow married men to be ordained.

Further, the Eastern Orthodox (who WERE in union with Rome until the early 11th century) have *always* allowed for the ordination of married men for the parish priesthood. (Monks and bishops are celibates.)

Consider this point. Those who wish to argue against women as priests use arguments from history to point out that Christ didn't ordain women, etc. Fine - except when the arguments from history *support* ordination of married men, they are discarded!

No, changing the discipline on celibacy will NOT "destroy" the Catholic Church - it certainly hasn't destroyed 21 out of the 22 rites, OR destroyed the Eastern Orthodox (whom Pope John Paul II has worked hard to reunify with the Catholic Church. If the Eastern Orthodox WERE reunified, they certainly would not give up their married priests.)

Besides, the Latin Rite *already* ordains married men, when they convert from Anglicanism or Lutheranism, and want to be Catholic priests. In fact, there are more married Latin Rite priests in the USA than there are Byzantine Catholic married priests! Why not just make it possible in general?

33 posted on 03/16/2002 11:04:27 AM PST by ikanakattara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: ikanakattara
Why not just make it possible in general?

There are a couple of dioceses here in Texas that are reduced to taking back men who left the priesthood, married outside the Church, then divorced their wives.

These men are welcomed back with open arms because the Church is desperate for priests. But if a man (like me) was laicized (which was the only way I could get married in the Church), forget it. I can't even serve as a deacon (I left after being ordained a deacon).

Screwy.

34 posted on 03/16/2002 11:15:18 AM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: ikanakattara
Actually, the Apostle Paul was married at one time. He was a Pharisee, a postion that only married men could attain. What is not known is whether his wife had died or left him when he was converted to Jesus.
48 posted on 03/16/2002 2:05:07 PM PST by gracex7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: ikanakattara
St. Paul was not, but he specifically said that *his personal committment" did not need to be applied to everyone.

Before Paul was Paul (when he was Saul) he was a member of the Sanhedrin. From what I've studed, I believe it was mandatory for all Sanhedrin members to be married. So at one time Paul was married but we never read anything about his wife.

63 posted on 03/16/2002 3:40:45 PM PST by scripter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson