Replies

That is not the same thing exactly. For that example you made to apply it would be that Orthodox women would not be allowed to climb Mt. Athos, but women of for example's sake from a fictional Western rite Orthodox church who were allowed up on Athos.

See what I mean? No women of any stripe are allowed on that Athos mountain commune.

Under this Uniate system, you have married priests of one side of the Catholic faith and then you have priests that are required to be celibate in another side of the same Catholic faith.

Again, I am not saying this as a dig to Catholics, I just can't get anyone to explain why this double standard/restriction exists for divorce and married clergy in the Catholic tradition(s).

Thanks.

If you view the church as a series of "orders" with different rules; i.e., the Benedictines didn't eat much meat, Carmelites had to maintain silence . . . Latin rite priests must be celibate, Uniate priests can marry.

Allowing divorce and remarriage isn't right because that involves sin. One rule was laid down in the beginning concerning that and it shouldn't be circumvented by any discipline.

You are talking to the wrong person about priests being/not being allowed to marry because it is silly. It was a matter of choice in the bible. There are many things, traditions, in the church, both east and west, that are nonessential to the faith and cause divisions. This issue would seem to be one.

This will really get me flamed but I think the tradition of monks and nuns is something that grew out of innovation and cultural adaptation. There is no precedent for it in scripture. It throws people into abnormal living situations, and to overcome the isolation and abnormality of it, harsh rules were made which has nothing to do with holiness or lack of it. One could argue that that life is freely chosen, which is true for some, but those same individuals could become just a holy living in the world.

>>>>Again, I am not saying this as a dig to Catholics, I just can't get anyone to explain why this double standard/restriction exists for divorce and married clergy in the Catholic tradition(s).

You are mixing two things, divorce and marriage, and you haven't provided any justification I can see for doing so.

First, re marriage: Why do you consider any of this a double standard?

Just becuase they are different? The two different Rites have different traditions, and this is one of them. A married priest is not contrary to the faith, it is not a doctrinal matter, so it is simply a prudential decision. The Church has decided that in one Rite, used predominately in the East, that allowing marriage is the prudent thing to do. To my knowledge this is largely because this is what the people are used to, and they have found it works fine for them. No reason to mess with it. In the West, the Church has decided it is better for priests to remain celibate (at one time it was continent, now its celibate, again, merely a prudential change). There are positives and negatives of each practice. There are many such differences between the Rites. For example, they use a different liturgy then we do. They cannot use the Roman Rite (Western) and we cannot use the Eastern Rites. Is that also a double standard? No, each Rite has its liturgical Rites, just as each Rite has its norms for clergy. They are just different.

Re divorce. I was not aware that divorce was allowed for any Catholic, much less a priest. I have followed each of the links you have provided, and not a single one has mentioned divorce as allowed in any Catholic Church, Eastern or Western. I suspect you misunderstand something, and it would help if you would clarify exactly what you are asking regarding divorce. You keep simply lumping it in with marriage, and that is both confusing and wrong.

To try to help you along, annulment is another matter. Annulment is a declaration that the marriage never existed, not that it existed and is now gone.

patent