Posted on 12/12/2004 8:54:32 AM PST by Land of the Irish
The priesthood should be open to married men. There are many good Catholic men who would accept the call.
Perhaps you should consider committing to a ministry in the Church, of some kind.
It would help your attitude.
No.
I'm asking you to flesh out what you said. This couldn't be more simple. If an article is "anti-American", and therefore "drivel", then I want to hear in principle how it is that you have come to associate these two ideas.
Now that's some genuine guilt-by-association right there: "drivel" and "anti-American". So flesh it out.
It most certainly has done wonders for yours, hasn't it? lol.
Your 'fleshing' standards have no relevance -nor is attempting to further meet your satisfaction my primary concern. You will have to endure your unfulfilling quandary unreciprocated. I would hope you do not project your pain in fits of anger -the inability to please you is at least partly my fault.
I'm sure there are "many" but they are certainly not "good Catholic men" as by simply taking this attitude they are saying that their own carnal desires are more important to them than God and his Church. Jesus didn't say, 'give up everything you have, except what you really, really want; and follow me'. The very core of this position is that their wife (or potential wife) is more important to them than the priesthood. That's not the kind of priests the Church needs, especially now, the Church needs priests that are 100% committed to the Church and nothing else.
Serving God is not supposed to be about having a "good life" as you call it, being able to do what you want, when you want and go home to your wife. It is about doing what God wants, how He wants it and keeping yourself only unto Holy Mother Church; which has always meant self-sacrifice and a little or a lot of suffering. You are repeating the age old (and again Protestant) attitude of wanting to have it both ways, wanting to be a servant of God but without giving up anything you like.
Yes. This is the old "celibacy is better than marriage" argument which John Paul II has spent his entire papcy debunking. Carnal desires in marriage are good, in case you're not up on the Theology of the Body.
Jesus didn't say, 'give up everything you have, except what you really, really want; and follow me'.
Jesus never made celibacy a requirement for following Him. He said Let him accept it(celibacy) who can. Besides, the requirement to "give up everything" in the Gospels is to all Christians, not just those who are called to ministry. We are all called to give up our attachment to materialities.
The very core of this position is that their wife (or potential wife) is more important to them than the priesthood.
Nonsense. The Church has always had married priests, from the Orthodox for 2000 years, to the 25 year old Anglican dispensation in the Latin Rite.
That's not the kind of priests the Church needs, especially now, the Church needs priests that are 100% committed to the Church and nothing else.
The Church needs priests, period. Those who are called to celibacy will still honor that charism; those who aren't will also be able to serve.
It is about doing what God wants, how He wants it and keeping yourself only unto Holy Mother Church; which has always meant self-sacrifice and a little or a lot of suffering. You are repeating the age old (and again Protestant) attitude of wanting to have it both ways, wanting to be a servant of God but without giving up anything you like.
You have no idea what I give up.
You have that Pharasaical attitude of presuming that you are the final authority on interpreting God's Word. If you'll notice, the Church has gradually relaxed the celibacy discipline by instituting the permanent diaconate and the Anglican dispensation.
Quite the contrary, Mr. Pharisee, I am submitting to the doctrine of the Church, which is to have a celibate priesthood. It is *YOU* who are claiming to know better than the entire Church for the past thousand years, at the very least, when celibacy became the rule (it had already been common). Once again, those you seem to admire most, Greek or Anglican, are not Catholic.
If being married is more important to these "good Catholic men" than being a priest, obviously the Church does not take first place in their life. I have to agree with Royalcello, I think you would be much happier with the Protestants where you can follow their lovely "self-interpreting" trail from married clergy, to female clergy to married "gay" clergy.
I'm going to print me up a t-shirt:
"What Would The Inquisition Say?"
Celibacy is not a doctrine; it is a discipline.
Once again, those you seem to admire most, Greek or Anglican, are not Catholic.
LOL!! You want me to join the Protestants, and you don't even know that The Catholic Church has Orthodox Eastern Rite married priests (in union with Rome), or that the Anglican dispensation involves Anglican converts to the Catholic Faith, ordained to the Catholic priesthood and remaining married.
Perhaps you need to join the 21st century and stop running after kings and queens.
Perhaps you need to learn to read and stop dancing around my points. I am well aware, insulting Deacon, of the various rites in the Church. The fact remains, what you are pointing to are rare exceptions, not the normal preferred practice.
I am also well aware, your arrogance, that celibacy is not a "doctrine", but the name you choose has nothing to do with the point of my comment, which you ignored, rather like you seem to ignore anything in the Church that doesn't meet your approval. Not to mention insulting anything you disagree with, from persons to papal headgear.
You weren't a half hour ago:
Quite the contrary, Mr. Pharisee, I am submitting to the doctrine of the Church, which is to have a celibate priesthood.
You also weren't aware that "Orthodox" referred to the Eastern Rites.
It's tough to deny your pants aren't around your ankles when it is perfectly clear that that's where they were.
You can play with words all you like, but the facts remain: you are the one going against Church teaching here, not me, everyone can see that. If you disdain 90% of the Church anyway, I fail to see why this bothers you, or why you freak out at being called a Protestant when you are clearly "protesting" against something the Church does.
Are the meanings of any of these words unclear to you?
If married priests are so common and the Church is okay with it and lets all these people do it (which I've never seen), I don't see what your little tantrum is about. Why not stop slinging insults and stick to the basics:
-Does the Church have a celibate priesthood or not?
-Do you submit to the Church in this area or not?
-Someone who does not submit to the Church is called...
Where'd you get this? JP II is fully in support of the idea that "celibacy is better than marriage", just like Paul VI and Bl. John XXIII.
Virginity or celibacy, by liberating the human heart in a unique way,[40] "so as to make it burn with greater love for God and all humanity,"[41] bears witness that the kingdom of God and his justice is that pearl of great price which is preferred to every other value no matter how great, and hence must be sought as the only definitive value. It is for this reason that the church throughout her history has always defended the superiority of this charism to that of marriage, by reason of the wholly singular link which it has with the kingdom of God. (John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, 16)
The true, profound reason for dedicated celibacy is, as We have said, the choice of a closer and more complete relationship with the mystery of Christ and the Church for the good of all mankind: in this choice there is no doubt that those highest human values are able to find their fullest expression. (Paul VI, Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, 54)
It deeply hurts Us that ... anyone can dream that the Church will deliberately or even suitably renounce what from time immemorial has been, and still remains, one of the purest and noblest glories of her priesthood. The law of ecclesiastical celibacy and the efforts necessary to preserve it always recall to mind the struggles of the heroic times when the Church of Christ had to fight for and succeeded in obtaining her threefold glory, always an emblem of victory, that is, the Church of Christ, free, chaste and catholic. (Bl. John XXIII, Second Address at the Roman Synod, Jan. 26, 1960)
The same doctrine was taught by Vatican II:
Through virginity, then, or celibacy observed for the Kingdom of Heaven,(37) priests are consecrated to Christ by a new and exceptional reason. They adhere to him more easily with an undivided heart,(38) they dedicate themselves more freely in him and through him to the service of God and men, and they more expeditiously minister to his Kingdom and the work of heavenly regeneration, and thus they are apt to accept, in a broad sense, paternity in Christ. (Presbyterorum Ordinis, 16)Students ought rightly to acknowledge the duties and dignity of Christian matrimony, which is a sign of the love between Christ and the Church. Let them recognize, however, the surpassing excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ, so that with a maturely deliberate and generous choice they may consecrate themselves to the Lord by a complete gift of body and soul. (Optatam Totius, 10)
And it is repeated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1619-1620). There is no reason to reject it.
A discipline is not a "teaching." It is a discipline.
If you disdain 90% of the Church anyway, I fail to see why this bothers you, or why you freak out at being called a Protestant when you are clearly "protesting" against something the Church does.
LOL!!! Opposing mandatory celibacy is "disdaining 90% of the Church anyway"? Bizarre.
The Latin Rite of the Catholic Church has a celibate priesthood, with exceptions. "The Church" is made up of more than the Latin Rite.
There is no requirement to "submit" to the Church in this area, since the Church has married priests, even in the Latin Rite.
Dear Guelph4ever,
"-Does the Church have a celibate priesthood or not?"
The Latin Rite of the Catholic Church has a general rule of celibacy, but hundreds of exceptions to it have been made.
The Eastern Catholic Churches, all in communion with the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome, require celibacy for monks and bishops, but generally do not have a rule of celibacy for non-monastic priests.
The Latin Rite of the Catholic Church makes up over 90% of all Catholics, but there are 22 other Catholic Churches in communion with the pope, and they are as Catholic as the Latins.
As well, should re-union ever come into effect between what Pope John Paul II has called the "other lung of the Church," the Orthodox will retain their tradition of celibacy for monastics and bishops, but not for parish priests.
The Church does not teach that celibacy is instrinsically required to be a priest. Otherwise, no exceptions could be made to the rule. A married man could then not be validly ordained a priest.
The Church DOES teach that women cannot be priests. Even should a bishop attempt to ordain a woman, nothing sacramental would happen. No ontological change would take place. The ordination would not be valid, would not be real.
Doctrines don't admit of exceptions.
sitetest
Dear sinkspur,
"There is no requirement to 'submit' to the Church in this area..."
Not quite. One may apply for an exception, because it is a discipline, not a doctrine. But whatever the Church rules in a particular case, the particular Catholic must submit to that judgment.
However, one is free to believe that the Church may benefit from a change in the discipline, as disciplines are susceptible to change.
sitetest
Yes.
Sure they do. You said his writing was drivel. Naturally, I ask you why, based on principle. In other words, to flesh out your comment.
You just won't support your comment, that's all. Probably because you can't.
"-nor is attempting to further meet your satisfaction my primary concern."
In other words, you won't because you can't. That's because the comment had little or no substance to it.
"You will have to endure your unfulfilling quandary unreciprocated."
It's your quandry, man. You can't support your comment.
"I would hope you do not project your pain in fits of anger -the inability to please you is at least partly my fault."
I don't understand that one either. I'm afraid to ask what it means, because then we'd have to add it to the list of unexplained aimless comments.
Still waiting for you to explain what Rao has written that was drivel, what you think constitutes anti-American, and whether anti-American, once defined, is a really a bad thing or not.
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.