IN THE NEW TESTMENT, THE APOSTLES DESCRIBE WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN ELDER, DEACON OR LEADER OF A CHURCH SHOULD BE. ONE WHO IS MARRIED TO ONE PERSON AND HAS CHILDREN. THE QUESTION IS ASKED HOW CAN A MAN LEAD THE CHURCH AND IT'S AFFAIRS IF HE CAN NOT MANAGE HIS OWN FAMILY. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE PROBLEMS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS HAVING IS DUE TO THE LEADERSHIP NOT FOLLOWING THE BIBLE. I THINK PRIEST SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY AND IT SHOULD BE A REQUIREMENT AS IT IS IN THE BIBLE. MAYBE THE PRIEST CHARGED WITH TOUCHING CHILDREN IN THE UNITED STATES MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED AND BROUGHT THE DISGRACE AGAINST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO MARRY AND HAVE IT AS A REQUIREMENT OF THEIR POSITIONS.

-- ROSE SWANN (ROMASWANN@WM.CONNECT.COM), June 09, 2002

Answers

Rose

The Priest is Married to the Church and we are the children of the Church who he has to guide and teach. You are taking the scriptures in their literal context and not in their allegorigal context. The Priest is living his life in the role of Christ and he is married to her the Church as the Nuns are married to Christ.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 09, 2002.

Rose,

For once and for all, why don't people understand that priests who are sexually abusing children do so because they are sick men, and not because they are celibate, not because they are not married.

There is more sexual abuse (called incest) in a family by a father towards his own children, grandfathers, uncles, brothers, etc...than there is in the catholic church. However, families keep it a 'secret" as well....just like the church did. Sexual abuse goes unreported every day in families. Jails are full of pedophiles who are not priests.

So, let us not blame this situation on priests not getting married. Many priests do not want to be married. I have yet to hear one priests, except those who left to get married, say they want to be married.

None of the priests in my parish want to be married, like their life just the way it is...my pastor says, "I hear you confessions, do you think I want your problems??"

Some priests are very content with their lives just the way it is, and are not sexually abusing children because they are celibate. Child molestation is an illness which has NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING MARRIED, CELIBATE, OR NOT BEING MARRIED - PLEASE GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!

Many former priests did leave the priesthood because they wanted to marry and have a family - perhaps they can work something out to bring these men back...perhaps they should let priests marry who want that life and still want to be a priest....maybe in the future that issue can be resolved. Not everyone is called to live a celibate life. I'm sure it can be very difficult for some men.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 09, 2002.

MaryLu

Only men who are widowers can become priests. Or married men can become Deacons.

Please don't confuse the issue. The Church will survive well in the future as soon as the current problems recede. We have enough troubles now as it is. This week I found out in the news of a group of Nuns and others who are currently trying to take over the Church by having meetings with the Laity in Belleville Illinois and it has me seething at this time. Three of the Nuns are right here in my own Parish and they are lucky that I have not approached them yet. I cannot understand these women and their denial of the roles that they should be following and the lack of respect to their position by not wearing the proper habits to allow the general public to recognize them.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 09, 2002.

Hi Fred,

I know that only widowers and Deacons can become priests. I was referring to those priests who left to get married. I was just thinking that if we have a shortage of priests, and there is a crisis, could these former priests come back to help out with the masses or other duties that they were trained for. I wasn't trying to be disrespectful. I am concerned about the shortage.

My pastor told us the other day to be prepared for a change in the Sunday masses because there just are not enough priests any more, and with the removal of so many because of the scandal, there is going to be a serious problem.

Fred, to me, priests who loved being priests, but could not live the celibate life, are good men who wanted a wife and family and I don't see why they cannot be returned to the church in some capacity. They have all that training and knowledge....would it really be so terrible, Fred to let these men return in some capacity? I know you are going to get upset at my saying this, but I just don't see why not, really I don't.

These men have families, homes and jobs. They could help out with weddings, funerals, masses on Sunday. Some parishes only have one priest...Fred, the shortage is a serious problem and they are going to have to come up with a solution, that is all I am saying.

Some very good priests, who were loved by everyone, did a good job, just could not handle the life they had - they were lonely and wanted a family and a wife and were given no choice but to leave. I think bringing them back in some capacity could be a solution to the problem.

Do you really think it would be so wrong, Fred? I don't.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 09, 2002.

MaryLu

AS it has been said before. do we really need to see the problems of a "Married" priest in our parishes next and the demands that would be borne towads the Lay Catholics as a result. Who is going to absorb the added responsibility of the families they tow around and the many other marital problems we all are familiar with. If he has 10 kids and the such would definitely create a large financial duty to the Lay people and limit his availablity to us and our needs. Give it some thought. The role of the Deacons will help some and the shortage is in fact just as much our fault as lay people in our selfishness to have worldly desires. It has caused much damage in the Church and her needs.

Prayer is more in order and repentance toward holiness is what we need. Not changing the rules.

Don't fret things will work out for the better. Have faith it will work. I do.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 09, 2002.

Marlu I would just pipe up to say that the most amazing Parish priest I have ever met, left the Priesthood to get married. He was just such an incredible priest, highly respected he undoubtly would have become Cardinal and done great things for the Catholic Church in NZ. His name was Father Horton of St Mary's parish in South Aucklnad. Such a tragedy, he was clearly called and blessed by God yet was unable to carry out his calling, what a shame. The Church's loss and he is just a drop in the bucket, as this story is repeated over and over again. Guess the next Brazilian 20 year old will have to fill the void, go figure.

-- KG (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 09, 2002.

First Timothy 3:2-5, states: "It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behavior, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" This is from the Roman Catholic translation.

Obviously, the Bible isn't talking about being "married to the church" in the above passage.

Celibacy isn't the cause of the current problem. Priests who engage in this type of conduct probably would do so if they were marrried. However, by having a clergy that is celibate, many men who are not "family men" are attracted to the priesthood. Take for example that clown Shandley. That guy would have stuck out like a sore thumb in the midst of a predominently married clergy. Yes, he could have got married, lived a double life, etc. But I doubt he would have ever become a priest.

I haven't heard of any problems with pedophlic priests in those rites of the Roman Catholic Church that have married priests (such as the Maronites or Ukranians).

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), June 09, 2002.

Steve

Who told you that you are a Catholic Theologian? It is part of the Catholic Traditions as handed down by the Holy Spirit and that is the end of the discussion. You belong to a group with NO TRADITIONS to base your faith on. So to make a judgement here is totally out of your sights.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 09, 2002.

Fred --

Since the Roman Church does have priests who are married, it is obviously NOT part of the tradition. It can be changed and it should be changed.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), June 09, 2002.

OVER MY DEAD BODY IT WILL

Furthermore what is this ROMAN CHURCH you seem to know. I never heard of it.

Furthermore the unmarried Celibate priests have been part of the Church for centuries.

It is part of Catholic Tradition and it will remain so. The Popes all have stood hard on this issue and as far as I am concerned it will remain so.

Married priests will never solve the problems at all. It is the change of man's earthly attitudes that will solve the problems. I can see it well. Yet you see very little, but offer more criticisms.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 09, 2002.

Rose,

If we are to follow what is in the Scriptures, we must take them in their totality, and not isolate framents of it. In Matthew 19:12, the Lord says: "Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, BECAUSE THEY HAVE RENOUNCED MARRIAGE FOR THE SAKE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 7, verse 8, St. Paul writes: "Now to the unmarried and to widows I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire." Then in verses 26-27 he writes, So this is what I think best because of the present distress: that it is a good thing for a person to remain as he is. Are yu bound to a wife? Do not seek a separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife. If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that".

Both The Lord and St. Paul were unmarried, celibate men. The Lord is our Saviour, and St. Paul is perhaps the greatest evangelist that the world has ever seen. If a man is called to the vocation of marriage, his life is to be devoted to family, which is in itself a church. If a man is called to the priesthood, he is to devote his life to the church, which in of itself is a family. I know many children and wives of Protestant Pastors who are in and out of therapy and support groups because they feel neglected. I know many church members with married Pastors who feel neglected as well. Being a pastor is a 24 hour a day job, and so is the job of a husband and father.

Ask any married man, perhaps your own husband or someone you are close to, if they had to go without sex for a long period of time, would they become sexually deranged so much that they would start being attracted to children? If anything, they would become more attracted to women. Any priests that are homosexuals or pedophiles were so before they were even priests.

The only way we Catholics will be rid of this problem is if Bishops and Semenaries are true to the moral teaching of the Church. And prayer, lots of prayer...

God Bless You,

-- Marcella (marcellack@yahoo.com), June 09, 2002.

Kiwi writes:

"Guess the next Brazilian 20 year old will have to fill the void, go figure. "

Kiwi, what exactly does this sentence mean? It sounds a bit racist; but maybe there is an innocent point that you're trying to make.

Thanks,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 09, 2002.

Rose,

I'd like to give you a word of advise: TURN OFF YOUR CAPS-LOCK! TRY TO AVOID THIS IMPOLITE BEHAVIOR.

Steve Jackson:

"I haven't heard of any problems with pedophlic priests in those rites of the Roman Catholic Church that have married priests (such as the Maronites or Ukranians)."

Placing this question aside, I personally know of an individual who was molested by a married Protestant minister. Married men, according to what I've read, are the most common child-abusers. Sexual abusers also tend to victimize young relatives (sons/daughters/nephews/neices).

Advocating married priests as a "solution" to prevent pedophilia is a stretch of the imagination. These are unrelated issues.

Here are some previous threads on celibacy:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 09, 2002.

After my Speedy comments youve got the wrong idea Mateo Im no racist. Just a not so subtle dig at the 'rent a priest' import practice to help ease the acute shortage of local NZ priests. No offence ment just a simple supply and demand thing, we used to import alot of our priests from Ireland but I think that supply line has dried up- Sth America has a surplas, hope you follow my logic in regard to earlier post. Ive been thinking about Fr Horton since Ive posted wow I wish he could post on this board, he would blow everyone away, so knowledgable, so caring, so humble, so considerate, so....Catholic. He had that something that would just lift you up, and he never ever forgot a name, even if you were only 8 years old and he met you once. Quite incredible, a great role model and again such sadness that he had to leave, but "thems the rules" and like Fred said The Pope hasn't moved on this issue so thats that.

-- KG (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 10, 2002.

ps thanks for the links Mateo. 1 question, Would you consider the priesthood as a married man if the rules changed, as you cetainly know your stuff?

-- KG (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 10, 2002.

Matteo,

I'm not saying that a married clergy would never have any problems with molestation. My point is that it would be less likely.

If a celibate clergy is part of the tradition, then please explain why the Roman Catholic Church does have married priests (Ukranian rite). Why hasn't it imposed celibacy on the Ukranians?

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), June 10, 2002.

Hello Everyone:

Married priests with children would present a whole host of other problems, and especially is unfair to the children when their father is pastoring -- just ask a preacher's kid what it's like to grow up with a pastoring father!

But that aside, why can't priests who want to get married perhaps take positions in seminaries as instructors? That would be invaluable! Scott Hahn -- a case in point!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), June 10, 2002.

KG

Your Quote:

"and like Fred said The Pope hasn't moved on this issue so thats that."

Now where did I really saw such a stupid thing? The Pope has actually moved on this issue clearly. He has left the responsibility on the bishops who are involved and clearly gave them orders to clear up the matter. Again I keep saying this it is NOT a pedophile issue. It is young adult and priests. Not little children.

I sure wish you would finally realize that Fr. Horton is NO LONGER A PRIEST. Also the married priesthood is never going to solve this issue of abbuse as long as diversity of humankind exists. The role of celibacy has been long established and will never change. It is Church doctrine and fully supported by scripture and Paul was very vocal on it too.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 10, 2002.

Dear Fred,

Married priests will not solve the problem of child molestation, for we all know celibacy has nothing to do with the problem.

Married priests, or deacons taking the next step to priesthood, could certainly solve the shortage problem. Catholics are traditionalists and don't like change, but I think we all have to face reality and accept the fact that change is required if we want our church to survive. MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 10, 2002.

MaryLu

I cannot understand why you are refusing to understand that the issue of Married Priests is a no-no. This will never solve any shortage situation and will never stop the abuse situation either. You need to put your FAITH CAP on not your WORLDLY HUMAN CAP on. Trust me it is GOD's choice and St Paul is very adamant on this issue. I took the name of Paul for my confirmation just based on Paul's strength alone.

He never did let anyone to shake his theologies from day one. And never will either.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 10, 2002.

Prayer is the answer to the Shortage of priests. Period.

Priests who "leave" the priesthood to get married are still priests (once a priest always a priest). It is just like a valid marriage (once married, it is 'til death do you part). So, this is why some might find an "active" married priest (just like one might find someone who is devorced and remarried), even though the marriage is invalid because he already is married to the Church. It doesn't mean it is right, but the priest still represents Christ. He is just living in sin (fornication). To consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ during mass, while in mortal sin, is a mortal sin in itself. It is still valid to the Church, but the blame of sin is on the priest (and correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it is a sacrilege). This is why it would be impossible for the Church to request a married priest "help out". Because in doing so, the Church will be openly supporting and condoning fornication and causing the priest (remember he still is a priest) to further sin.

Many of the teachings of the Church are still in developement. It is a living Church that growes with the knowledge of the Holy Spirit. This is why we might see that priests in Scripture were married. But I believe they were married prior to their calling to the priesthood. I don't think it mentions anything of the priest getting married, only the married becoming priests. Nonetheless, as the teachings of the Church developed, it was revealed through the Power of the Holy Spirit that ordained priests should devote their lives to their spiritual spouse, the Church.

Please add or correct if I have said anything out of line.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 10, 2002.

Kiwi writes:

"Would you consider the priesthood as a married man if the rules changed, as you cetainly know your stuff?"

No I wouldn't. I will soon be married, God willing. I would not become a "married priest." If for no other reason, I don't like the problems that Protestant ministers have with balancing family needs with ministry needs. I have friends who suffered trying to be husband/ministers...I don't see the two vocations as compatible. For women, an imperfect comparison could be made to working mothers--both the career and the children compete for attention, fostering one often hurts the other.

Rules...no rules...I wouldn't be a married priest.

Steve wrote:

"I'm not saying that a married clergy would never have any problems with molestation. My point is that it would be less likely."

I disagree: I don't think the two are related. So, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Steve wrote:

"If a celibate clergy is part of the tradition, then please explain why the Roman Catholic Church does have married priests (Ukranian rite). Why hasn't it imposed celibacy on the Ukranians?"

A promise of priestly celibacy is a Western tradition. It is a tradition that Eastern Catholics never adopted. It isn't the job of the Universal Church to "assign tradition" to Eastern Rite Catholics. Allowing married clergy in the Eastern Church isn't contrary to any universal teaching of the Catholic Church.

I believe that link #1 above leads to a thread in which I have contributed a number of celibacy links. Instead of reiterating my thoughts, I'd recommend following those links--there's a number of theological and practical reasons for celibacy.

Gail wrote:

"But that aside, why can't priests who want to get married perhaps take positions in seminaries as instructors?"

I think that you mean, "Why can't married people who desire to be priests take positions in seminaries as instructors?"

If this is what you mean, well...that's exactly what I plan on doing! My current goal is to go back to grad-school and see if that path is the right one for me. Pleeeeeeease, keep me in my prayers Just because I (or anyone) decides to get married, that doesn't mean that my "vocation search" is a non-issue. Every one of us has a vocation to serve God! :-)

I could comment on this forever; but I've gotta work. :-(

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 10, 2002.

Gail

It is noteworthy to say that once a priest is married or leaves his priesthood he cannot in anyway teach or participate in the actual Mass in ANY capacity. He cannot even do any readings or serve communion as a lay person does.

I have serious doubts that the Church will even allow him to teach others who are in some catechetical classes and in a seminary. He can only teach again once he renews his vows as a priest. That is Church Law from what I have read in the past.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 10, 2002.

Gail,

It seems I may have totally misinterpreted your statement. Sorry!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 10, 2002.

Gail

But that aside, why can't priests who want to get married perhaps take positions in seminaries as instructors? That would be invaluable! Scott Hahn -- a case in point!

Scott Hahn never was a priest. He is a former Presbyterian Minister. A former Priest is not allowed to teach. It is Church law.

Blessings.

Blessings

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 10, 2002.

Fred,

Scott Hahn is a Theology professor at Franciscan University at Steubenville, Ohio. Lay people can teach in the Church as catechists, I am preparing to be a catechist myself. The writings of Scott Hahn have been responsible for hundreds if not thousands of Protestants coverting to the Church, including myself. I think you misunderstood what Gail meant

God Bless You,

-- Marcella (marcellack@yahoo.com), June 10, 2002.

Ordination to priesthood is voluntary, not imposed.--

Why hasn't it imposed celibacy on the Ukranians? -- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com),

It is a required vow, in our Latin Rite. But what is ''imposed'' about accepting a discipline you know in advance, in order to serve God?

If it was good enough for JESUS, why is it all a mistake for those who embrace His teachings? We all know the vow of celibacy is a HOLY vow. Celibacy itself can be holy or simply ordinary. All single men are commanded by God to be celibates. Are these men being imposed upon? No. Priests must be celibate because they are single men. Not because sex is forbidden.

They can choose to remain single and become priests after the image of Jesus. Or-- if this is too demanding for them, they can choose to marry, and not enter holy orders. Nothing is ever IMPOSED, Steve.
Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 10, 2002.

Marcella

Gail's Quote:

"But that aside, why can't priests who want to get married perhaps take positions in seminaries as instructors?" _____________________________________________________________________ From everything I have read in the past, the Church forbids former priests to teach. I have never seen anything contrary to that. It is the stain on their priesthood that the Church fears from what I understand.

I pray this answers your question.

Blessings

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 10, 2002.

Marcella

OOPs

I was not sure about the Lay persons teaching for sure. Yes now I think about it, Scott Hahn does teach Seminarians too. Me and my sloppy reading again. Oh well.

Blessings

BTW-- good luck on your new venture. You have my prayers.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 10, 2002.

Just so I can be a nerd for a moment, Eugene writes:

"It is a required vow, in our Latin Rite."

Actually, priests (including Latin Rite priests) take a vow of chastity, not celibacy. They also must make a promise to remain celibate. I don't know if I can properly explain the nuance of meaning between a "vow" and a "promise." A vow is a solemn promise.

Nevertheless, it is a universal rule that priests who are ordained in a single state may not marry. This includes all of Catholicism (East and West), and even the Orthodox priesthood.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 10, 2002.

OK, Mateo,
The suggestion that a vow of chastity is different from celibacy:

--a vow of chastity, not celibacy. They also must make a promise to remain celibate. I don't know if I can properly explain the nuance of meaning between a "vow" and a "promise." A vow is a solemn promise.''

--Could mean all unchaste actions are renounced by vow. However, celibacy, if renounced by a vow, would make it sinful for a priest EVER to marry. This is not a stipulation of the ''promise'' of celibacy. Because, if he left the priesthood, that ex-priest could marry without breaking a sacred vow. I see the distinction at a glance.

Actually, a vow of chastity is binding with regard to any impure act. Marriage can't be called an impure act at all, for those in a licit union.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 10, 2002.

Hi, folks.

I noticed quite a few references, above, to ex-priests, former priests, men leaving the priesthood, and similar words.

Actually, Jake H is correct in saying "once a priest, always a priest." There is really no such thing as a "former priest" or "leaving the priesthood." Instead, we should try to accustom ourselves to speaking of "inactive priests" and "leaving the active priesthood." The Sacrament of Orders, like Baptism and Confirmation, leaves a "character" -- a sort of spiritual "branding-iron mark" on a soul, explaining why these sacraments can never be repeated and can never be undone.

Hi, Marcella. You are correct in saying that "Scott Hahn is a Theology professor at Franciscan University at Steubenville, Ohio." (Fred, I believe that you are mistaken in saying that Dr. Hahn teaches seminarians. FUS is not a seminary.)

I tried to find a Vatican document to support what Fred said above about the limitations placed on laicized priests. I remembered that the Vatican had published such a document, but I could not remember the details, and I have just now been unable to find the full text. However, I found one site (promoting active married priests) that presented the following, which is probably an accurate statement (including some internal quotations from Cardinal Ratzinger) about the Vatican's disciplinary regulations on this:

Inactive priests "are forbidden from 'taking any liturgical part in celebration with a congregation where his situation is known; he many never preach a homily.' ... They man not occupy any administrative office in a seminary, or similar institute, or teach there. ... Likewise ... they 'shall not occupy the office of director of Catholic schools, or religion teacher in any school, Catholic or otherwise.'"

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 10, 2002.

GOOD GRIEF -- Shoot me for saying the wrong words. Priests who are defrocked then are not longer able to be priests any longer and cannot participate in any functions. I went to the extreme in saying they are no longer priests if the Marry. But that does not stop them from returning if they become widowers.

What is next----LOLOLOL

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 10, 2002.

Jmj

Hi again, folks.

I was curious to look into what was said above about vows, chastity, celibacy, etc., so I poked around the Code of Canon Law that governs the Latin Church (i.e., more than 95% of the world's Catholics).

Before looking, my first recollection was that the word "vow" is used to refer only to promises made to God, usually by a man or woman entering or remaining in an institute of consecrated life (e.g., a religious order or congregation). Normally, there are three vows (poverty, chastity, and obedience), though some institutes may have a fourth one.
My second recollection was that diocesan (or "secular") priests, who make up far more than half the clergy, do not take "vows," but rather make "promises" to their bishops, thereby undertaking "obligations" of obedience and celibacy (but not poverty).
In my latest reading, I did not find anything in Canon Law to contradict these recollections. Here is what I did find:

"Canon 207 -- §1 -- By divine institution, among Christ's faithful there are in the Church sacred ministers, who in law are also called clerics ­- the others are called lay people."
[Thus, bishops, priests, and deacons are "clerics" or "clergy," while religious sisters, brothers, and all other non-ordained are "lay people" or "laity."]

"Canon 273 -- Clerics have a special obligation to show reverence and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and to their own Ordinary."
[Thus, a secular priest has an obligation to be obedient to the pope and to his bishop ("Ordinary").]

"Canon 277 -- §1 -- Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven, and are therefore bound to celibacy. Celibacy is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbor."
[The main exception to this is married, permanent deacons, who need not observe continence and celibacy.]

"Canon 282 -- §1 -- Clerics are to follow a simple way of life and avoid anything which smacks of worldliness. §2 -- Goods which they receive on the occasion of the exercise of an ecclesiastical office, and which are over and above what is necessary for their worthy upkeep and the fulfillment of all the duties of their state, they may well wish to use for the good of the Church and for charitable works."
[Here we see that diocesan priests can possess goods, earn a salary, etc., which is not true of religious order priests (who have taken a vow of poverty).]

Here is the Law's section on vows:

"Canon 1191 -- §1 -- A vow is a deliberate and free promise made to God, concerning some good which is possible and better. The virtue of religion requires that it be fulfilled. §2 -- Unless they are prohibited by law, all who have an appropriate use of reason are capable of making a vow. §3 -- A vow made as a result of grave and unjust fear or of deceit is by virtue of the law itself invalid.

"Canon 1192 -- §1 -- A vow is public if it is accepted in the name of the Church by a lawful [religious] Superior; otherwise, it is private. §2 -- It is solemn if it is recognized by the Church as such; otherwise, it is simple. §3 -- It is personal if it promises an action by the person making the vow; real, if it promises some thing; mixed, if it has both a personal and a real aspect.

"Canon 1193 -- Of its nature a vow obliges only the person who makes it.

"Canon 1194 -- A vow ceases by lapse of the time specified for the fulfillment of the obligation, or by a substantial change in the matter promised, or by cessation of a condition upon which the vow depended or of the purpose of the vow, or by dispensation, or by commutation.
[Men and women religious usually take temporary vows. Some institutes later have permament, lifelong vows.]

"Canon 1195 -- A person who has power over the matter of a vow can suspend the obligation of the vow for such time as the fulfillment of the vow would affect that person adversely.

"Canon 1196 -- Besides the Roman Pontiff, the following can dispense from private vows, provided the dispensation does not injure the acquired rights of others; 1° the local Ordinary and the parish priest, in respect of all their own subjects and also of peregrini; 2° the Superior of a religious institute or of a society of apostolic life, if these are clerical and of pontifical right, in respect of members, novices and those who reside day and night in a house of the institute or society; 3° those to whom the faculty of dispensing has been delegated by the Apostolic See or by the local Ordinary.

"Canon 1197 -- What has been promised by private vow can be commuted into something better or equally good by the person who made the vow. It can be commuted into something less good by one who has authority to dispense in accordance with Canon 1196.

"Canon 1198 -- Vows taken before religious profession are suspended as long as the person who made the vow remains in the religious institute."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 10, 2002.

Thanks, John. If I'm reading that right it seems there is some latitude or recourse for a nonactive-priest ?

Hi Marcella, glad to see you're back. What does a catechist do? Sounds exciting.

Love, Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), June 10, 2002.

Hi Gail,

A catechist is literally a teacher, just as the Catechism is the teaching of the church. I will be teaching grade school kids for my parish's Religious Education program starting in the fall.

God Bless You,

-- Marcella (marcellack@yahoo.com), June 10, 2002.

Marcella:

That's terrific! It's so nice to know of people like you teaching our kids!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), June 10, 2002.

Hi, Gail.
You wrote: "If I'm reading that right, it seems there is some latitude or recourse for a nonactive-priest?"

I'm not sure I know what you mean, but I'll give it a try.

First I should mention that there were thousands of priests who were "laicized" (went inactive, with Church permission) during the pontificate of Paul VI (1963 - 1978). But I understand that our current pope has been much less willing to grant laicizations. So, a much greater percentage of priests who went inactive since 1978 simply deserted their parishes, mostly in order to attempt marriage (invalidly) outside the Church.

Now, with that background ... Priests who were laicized with the Church's OK and who then remained unmarried (or are now widowers) are permitted to petition the pope for re-admission to the full, active ministry. (I don't know how many of them seek re-admission, and I don't know how many are allowed to return.)

In that somewhat unofficial quotation that I gave earlier, the following words were present:
An inactive priest is "forbidden from 'taking any liturgical part in celebration with a congregation where his situation is known ...'"

Is this where you saw some "latitude," Gail? The words seem to be saying that, if a laicized priest were to move to a place far from where he used to be active (thus removing a chance of scandal), his new bishop may allow him to act in non-priestly liturgical roles (e.g., server, reader, cantor, extraordinary minister of the Eucharist). But, even if an inactive priest moves, there would not be any "latitude" that would permit him to be a Catholic educator, preacher, or administrator.
I am not certain of these things, though, so please don't quote me on them.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 10, 2002.

FRED WHATS YOUR PROBLEM BUDDY? WHY SO PAINFULY PEDANTIC, SO PETTY? SO IM NOT THE SMARTEST COOKIE IN THE JAR BUT REALLY- GET A LIFE YOURE PAINFULLY BORING WHEN YOU DO THIS. lETS HAVE A LOOK AT YOUR FRIENDLY FREDDY POSTING...

"and like Fred said The Pope hasn't moved on this issue so thats that."

Now where did I really saw such a stupid thing?

WELL SO SORRY FOR BEING SO OFFENSIVE FREDDY BUT I TOOK THIS THE WRONG WAY HERE ARE YOUR WORDS "It is part of Catholic Tradition and it will remain so. The Popes all have stood hard on this issue and as far as I am concerned it will remain so."

The Pope has actually moved on this issue clearly. He has left the responsibility on the bishops who are involved and clearly gave them orders to clear up the matter. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THIS STATEMENT???!! ARE YOU REFFERING TO CELIBACY (AS I WAS) OR SOMETHING ELSE?

Again I keep saying this it is NOT a pedophile issue. It is young adult and priests. Not little children. NEVER HAVE I SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT BEING A PEDOPHILE ISSUE.

I sure wish you would finally realize that Fr. Horton is NO LONGER A PRIEST. OH SO SORRY FOR THE SLIP UP I DO REALISE THIS BUT THANKS FOR SO KINDLY POINTING IT OUT, JEEZ YOURE A JERK.

Also the married priesthood is never going to solve this issue of abbuse as long as diversity of humankind exists. OH WELL DONE EVEN I KNOW THAT FREDDY. BUT CELIBACY DOES ATTRACT A HIGHER % OF HOMOSEXUALS, WHO STUDIES HAVE SHOWN(i LEARNT THIS HERE) POSE A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER RISK OF SEXUAL ABUSE TO CHILDREN, MILES HIGHER THAN A MARRIED MAN. SO IT MAY HELP REDUCE THE RISK.

The role of celibacy has been long established and will never change.It is Church doctrine and fully supported by scripture and Paul was very vocal on it too. I SUPPOSE YOU STILL THINK THE EARTH IS FLAT,... DONT DROP OFF THE EDGE FREDDY, ON SECOND THOUGHTS...

-- KG (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 11, 2002.

KG

TSk, TSK, So now you are getting a tad hot under the collar. I don't think I can speak to you til it becomes apparent to you that you cannot change the Church to suit your needs. You need to grow with her not fight her. I had to grow with her during my lifetime and now have found the greatest of Joys in her and her Traditions and would not want to see anymore erosion of what makes her so rugged and beautiful. It is far easier to accept her as she is rather than to change her garments to suit our own desires.

GOD is LOVE, AGAPE, and this LOVE, AGAPE, knows no limits at all and we all need to see her, the Church in the same way.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 11, 2002.

I am a little confused and would like someone to clarify something for me.

"they 'shall not occupy the office of director of Catholic schools, or religion teacher in any school, Catholic or otherwise" a poster wrote.

Several former priests have been on tv shows lately talking about the scandal and issues surrounding it, and they were college professors at catholic universities teaching theology or were department heads, et....so, how can this be if the above statement is true?

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 11, 2002.

Hi John:

These are the canons that seem to grant some flexibility I was referring to:

"Canon 1195 -- A person who has power over the matter of a vow can suspend the obligation of the vow for such time as the fulfillment of the vow would affect that person adversely.

"Canon 1197 -- What has been promised by private vow can be commuted into something better or equally good by the person who made the vow. It can be commuted into something less good by one who has authority to dispense in accordance with Canon 1196.

"Canon 1198 -- Vows taken before religious profession are suspended as long as the person who made the vow remains in the religious institute."

But, I'm not a lawyer, and these were definitely written by lawyers, and I guess it would probably take a lawyer to interpret it. Any lawyers out there?

Love, Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), June 11, 2002.

Simple answer. They have accepted secular jobs and are not working in jobs within the Church. I have seen some of these people and many are giving anti catholic views. Or bashing someof the things about the Church.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 11, 2002.

I should clarify something a tad.

Some of the Priests who leave have left voluntarily for various reasons and are normally under strict Canon laws forbidden to teach or to directly participate in the functions of the Church unless they could gain dispensations from the Local Bishops to do some things such as teaching positions in Colleges and as long as they do not speak unfavorably with Church teachings. Of course this is purely speculative on my part as the Canons and other Laws within the Church are not normally within the grasp of us Lay people to understand fully. I cannot find this information yet, but if I or someone familiar of this will prayerfully may supply us all a good source of info on this issue.

I do know a defrocked priest is forbidden in participation of anything within the Mass and only can be present only. He is limited in what he may be able to do. This I do know of clearly.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 11, 2002.

I agree with Jack Huether above, once a priest always a priest. And to allow priests that are living in mortal sin, especially publicly, to teach or participate in Mass would appear to condone such behavior. This the Church cannot and should not do. Priests who are sick enough to abuse children, most likely would do it even if they were married. A priest must be able to devote ALL his time to his parishoners and the church, he must be able to come at a moments notice to give Extreme Unction or Holy Viaticum, he must be able to hear one's confession at the drop of a hat if that person's conscience is bothering him, he must be able to give classes to those looking to convert to Catholicism, he must recite the Divine Office at particular periods throughout the day. All this would be very difficult to fit into a schedule filled with a wife and children. (For his wife may want the leak in the kitchen sink fixed at the same time it is time to recite Compline.) I am a traditional Catholic, still attending the Mass said in Latin, still saying Rosary with my children, and still teaching them the Baltimore and St. Joseph's catechism. I believe that tradition holds as strong as dogma, and Catholic tradition is to have unmarried, celibate priests so that they may focus on God's church and his responsibilities there.

-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 11, 2002.

JH writes:

"I believe that tradition holds as strong as dogma, and Catholic tradition is to have unmarried, celibate priests so that they may focus on God's church and his responsibilities there. "

The Latin (Western) Tradition of the Catholic Church holds this tradition of unmarried, celibate priests. The Western Church does hold onto this tradition--I believe strongly that it should. But, it is not a universal tradition.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 11, 2002.

Mateo, You are very right. I stand corrected. But do you know why there is a difference between the rites as far as marriage and celibacy? I do not, and would love to see how people answer this, and then I will have to do research on my own.

-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 11, 2002.

Celibacy of priests was declared around 1079AD ... I'm interested in the rationale the Church used when it was declared. It means that for approx. 700 years, priests had the opportunity to marry. This Sacred Tradition started mid-way to our time... I'm curious what sparked it.

Scripture supports the choice of celibacy... Paul writes in his first letter to the Corinthians:

"Now concerning the things whereof you wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

It certainly seems obvious that Paul places a greater emphasis on celibacy.

...a few passages later...

"For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that."

Paul seems to be saying that although it is preferred, celibacy is not the only option.

In my opinion, celibacy in the Priesthood should be held up as preferred, but not a requirement. But it is only my opinion....

Your Brother in Christ,

-- Tom Perconti (tcperconti@prodigy.net), June 11, 2002.

Mateo, since it is not a universal tradition, then, even though it is not "permitted" by our western Church, is it considered a sin to marry while being a priest? And if so, why? If Scripture or tradition does not condemn it, then even though it is not permitted, why would it be a sin? And then that leads to the question, if both sides are in the "Catholic" Church, who's right? How do we know that God has spoken to us about the issue? And why have other Catholic Churches allowed it?

Thanks for your effors. i will try to look some info up also.

In Christ.

Besides for all the arguments against being married and a priest (like having to fix the leaky sink, when someone wants to confess - or whatever), what makes it a sin?

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 11, 2002.

Jack, I never said that THAT is what makes it a sin. But Christ did say "Peter you are rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. Whatever thou shall bound on earth, is bound in heaven. And whatever thou shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." As I was taught in apologetics class in high school, this means that whatever laws the church imposes or changes, are what laws we, as Catholics, should follow. It used to be a law that you could not have meat AT ALL during Lent, now it is only on Fridays (along with Ash Wednesday). It is a sin to break church law, not because what you are doing in and of itself is wrong, but because the church has deemed it a good thing, such as making a sacrifice by not eating meat on Fridays in Lent.

-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 11, 2002.

Thanks JH! Hey, those are my initials!

I also found this site .

It has a great Q and A section that would be helpful for any question. But here is the relevant one:

I hope this is not considered an inappropriate question, but I was wondering if the Church was considering allowing married individuals to enter the priesthood to meet the shortage of priests?

It is not an inappropriate question at all? Allow me to clarify a few things, however.

The discipline of celibacy - that men who have received sacred orders (deacon, priest, or bishop) may not subsequently enter marriage - seem to have been the normative practice of the Church since the time of the apostle themselves. In other words, orders have always been an impediment (an obstacle) to marriage. In the East and the West, it seems that the ancient practice was to allow married men to receive orders, but to require of them absolute continence (that is, after they were ordained they could not have sexual intercourse with their wives). In the West, especially during the fourth through sixth centuries, there was a gradual move toward requiring the spouses to separate and live apart after the husband's ordained, for the purpose of decreasing sexual temptation. At the same time, it became the growing practice to ordain only single men, with the consequence that they could not subsequently marry.

Pope Gregory VII, in the eleventh century, canonized the growing practice of the Church and stated that the Church would choose for sacred orders only those men who were not married. This has remained the practice and law of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church since that time. The Eastern Rites of the Roman Catholic Church still do admit married men to the priesthood (but not as bishops). Both Rites now admit married men to the diaconate, but require those men to remain celibate if their wives should die (in other words, not to remarry; since orders is an obstacle to marriage, but marriage is not an obstacle to orders). Were this law to be removed, sacred orders would still remain an obstacle to marriage, meaning the priests already ordained could not marry. Further, I would expect that the ancient practice of continence would be required or at least encouraged.

With regard to the 'shortage' of priests, it is true that the number of priests have decline din recent years in the USA and Canada, in Western Europe, and in Australia. However, in the reset of the world, the number of vocations is increasing by leaps and bounds. So, the problem is not a Church wide problem, it is one localized in European- derived first-world nations and probably has more to do with our culture than with the Church. I think affluence has a lot to do with it and the declining regard for the helping professions and a declining regard for the place of religion in society as a whole.

Finally, removing the law of celibacy - or for that matter, the Christ-given requirement that only men be ordained, which the Church does not have the power to do - will likely have little effect on the number of vocations. Why do I say this so confidently? Just like at the main-line churches and the Anglican and Episcopal churches. In America, these bodies admit married men and women to ministry, some have done so for a very long time. And many of these bodies have equal problems, if not worse problems in some cases, finding enough people for ministry, with additional doctrinal, ministerial, and financial problems.

Again, I think this is more of a societal issue than a Church issue and that serious attention must be paid to what expectations one has and to the whole nature of vocation. The question should be, to what is God calling me? Not, what do I want to do?

Answer provided by:

Very Rev. Kevin Michael Quirk, JCD Judicial Vicar

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 11, 2002.

JH wrote:

"But do you know why there is a difference between the rites as far as marriage and celibacy? I do not, and would love to see how people answer this, and then I will have to do research on my own."

and Tom wrote:

"Celibacy of priests was declared around 1079AD ... I'm interested in the rationale the Church used when it was declared. It means that for approx. 700 years, priests had the opportunity to marry. This Sacred Tradition started mid-way to our time... I'm curious what sparked it."

My thoughts...

Traditions don't contradict even when they differ. They are all different expressions of one truth. They are like the four Gospels. Each expresses the single Truth of Jesus Christ saving the world. None contradict, though each is a unique account.

Celibacy goes back to Jesus and the Apostles. I personally have a couple thoughts on why the Western Church chose to go with celibacy "way back when":

1) Allow a priest to focus on God and his people. Our celibate priests serve the Catholic people. A recommendation (not doctrine) from St. Paul:

1 Corinthians 7:28,32-34

"Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided."

2) Nepotism by some priests may have corrupted their mission to serve the people. I tend to think that it was anti-corruption Christians who pushed for the Western Church to implement universal celibacy as a means to better enable the Church to serve God's will as a tool for Salvation. I believe that it is ironic that many Protestant churches deal with this problem in a tangible way: nepotism, family vs. congregation finances, etc.

This view is my own conjecture, and I'd be interested in others' thoughts on them.

Jake writes:

"Mateo, since it is not a universal tradition, then, even though it is not "permitted" by our western Church, is it considered a sin to marry while being a priest? And if so, why?"

There have been exceptions to the rule. That said, I'll repeat something I wrote above: No Catholic priest (East or West) may validly marry after ordination. Eastern Catholics married men may be ordained, but that is different.

E. Pluribus Unum

There are plenty of secular examples of two "contradicting" traditions. One area where this kind of inconsistency exists is in state law--how can Louisiana maintain a Civil code, based on French Napoleonic code, while the rest of the United States use a British-based common-law system. Each of the 50 state's laws are unique, yet they all submit to the authority of the US Federal Law.

The litmus test for each tradition is: is the tradition consistent with Christian dogma/doctrines. My diocese makes me wait for 6 months before I can marry. Must all dioceses have a 6 month wait in order to be "sufficiently consistent"? My belief is: no.

Jake wrote:

"If Scripture or tradition does not condemn it, then even though it is not permitted, why would it be a sin?"

We Catholics believe that the Catholic Church has a teaching authority (Magesterium) that is inspired for eternity by the Holy Spirit. Denying a significant teaching of the Church is an implicit denial that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. I'd recommend the Catholic.com essays contained in this link.

Jake writes:

"And then that leads to the question, if both sides are in the "Catholic" Church, who's right? How do we know that God has spoken to us about the issue? And why have other Catholic Churches allowed it?"

I think that I've already covered this above. As a metaphor, we Americans have 50 states operating within the bounds of the US Constitution. There's diversity, yet none can transgress the federal law.

Jake writes:

"Besides for all the arguments against being married and a priest (like having to fix the leaky sink, when someone wants to confess - or whatever), what makes it a sin?"

I don't know exactly what you're saying here. St. Paul himself emphasized that "the married man is anxious about worldly affairs...and his interests are divided." There are plenty of other reasons; but we shouldn't ignore St. Paul's position.

Jake quotes:

"The Eastern Rites of the Roman Catholic Church"

Well, there is a bit of name confusion here. The universal Church is the "Catholic Church," not the Roman Catholic Church. I have had trouble sorting out how to properly sort out naming the universal Catholic Church, the Latin Rite/Church/Tradition, etc. I tend to identify the "Roman" adjective with the Western Church...

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 11, 2002.

Thank you so much for you research in this area. That was very interesting. And I do agree with you totally that celibacy is not what is keeping men from priesthood. It is the modernism and materialism of society today. Most people I know think their main reason for being here on earth is to make themselves happy, instead of pleasing God first. God needs to be reinstated as #1 in people's lives and alot would change. Don't get me wrong, I am far from a perfect example in this area. I battle everyday to keep my priorities straight, but it will be worth it in the long run. I know many people who do teach their children to pray and search for God's will before satisfying their own, and I have tried to do the same with mine. All hope is not gone for vocations thought, every first Sunday after church, the ladies gather and say a novena for more vocations. God may put us through a shortness of priests to try our resolve, but we have His promise that His church will last until the end of time.

-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 11, 2002.

That previous message of mine was for Jack. Thank you.

-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 11, 2002.

Mateo,

You have answered alot of questions very well and plainly for people to see. A job very well done. I agree with you totally on the points above. I do think celibacy for priests is best, and the Church is definitely guided by the Holy Ghost, therefore, we, as lay people, cannot always understand the decisions of the church in areas such as these, such as why some rites may be allowed married priests and some may not, but it baffles me.

-- JH (consulting@probank.com), June 11, 2002.

Hi, Gail.
As examples of apparent "flexibility," you copied three of the canons on vows that I had quoted earlier.
Actually, I don't think that those canons are applicable to what we are talking about (leaving the active priesthood and returning).

In my earlier post, I stated my belief that public vows are taken only by women and men who join religious congregations and orders to become nuns or sisters or brothers or "religious priests." But most priests in the world are not members of such congregations and orders. Rather, they are "diocesan" or "secular" priests. These do not live in monasteries/friaries/abbeys, etc., but in rectories. They do not take vows, but only make promises and assume obligations.

And so, the canons that you quoted do not pertain to most parish priests. I believe that two of the three canons pertain mainly to men and women who live in community and take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. And I think that Canon 1197, about "private vows," can even pertain to you and me, since ordinary lay people can make a vow to God [see Canon 1192 -- §1, above].

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 11, 2002.

Oh, I forgot to mention, Gail, that the reason I originally quoted those canons on vows was just to let Mateo see them, not to imply that they had something to do with celibacy and active/inactive priests.
I believe that Mateo mentioned vows in an earlier post, but was unsure what Church law says aboutthem, so I thought I would quote the canons for him.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 11, 2002.

Why are you so insistant that it is Church tradition [for celibate priests] when the Catholic Church does already allow married priests. We've already mentioned that the Uniate, or Eastern Rite churches do, but in some circumstances so does the Latin rite.

For instance, an Anglican/Episcopalian priest who chooses to convert to Rome may serve as a priest of Rome even if he was already married. (This is hear-say, by the way, and I don't know if it is a universal Latin practice [I live in Tasmania, Australia])

I believe that it will not completely solve the vocations problem, but it might take it from "crisis point" to "just pretty bad".

And as far as your arguments that the job of a Priest and family man don't mix go, I would beg to differ. I am a Protestant (who is considering Rome) who is used to married clergy. I have known some fantastic pastors who also have wives. Often they share their ministry (I'm not advocating female priests here, by the way, just deaconesses) whereby the wife will act as a sort of de facto pastor for the women in the congregation.

What do all you out there think?

-- Geoff j (mr_bozo@lycos.com), August 01, 2002.

I am a Ukranian Catholic who had a married priest with a son as the pastor of my local parish. The man was excellent. I have known unmarried, celibate, priests who were excellent also. Really, the question of marriage and the priesthood comes down to the fact if you out there as parishinorers feel that your priest is the absolute best candiate for the job. Yes, this scandal will eventually blow away, but the priesthood is continually heading downward. The best and the brightest are becoming increasingly harder to find. Quote St. Paul, a brilliant Apostle, but a man who was obviously waiting for the Apocolypse in his own lifetime. Quote Cannon Law, of course their is a tradition of a married priesthood! I knew this in second grade! Read the Bible! My advice to all Catholics, or those sympathetic to Catholics would be to pray that after the next Pope comes into office he will be a Protestant radical at heart and let parishes elect their own parish priests who they know are good, honest, moral men.

-- John Henry (compiler9772@lycos.com), August 15, 2002.

Thank you for your frank opinion;
The Catholic Church has no call to employ priests. Married, single, which is irrelevant. God must call a man to His service. When you declare the priesthood is heading ''downward'' --with the best and brightests becoming ''harder to find'', the infernce is that bishops and laymen call priests to serve God. You make reference to the scripture. Recall it was Christ said, ''You have not chosen me, I have chosen you.''

If the best and brightest aren't called, then lesser and not as bright are called. Because the Church has had each variety.

Go back through history. Peter was a rude fisherman. St. Jean-Marie Vianney the Cure of Ars as rough a diamond as ever existed. But then consider the great thinkers and doctors. Thomas Aquinas, John Henry Cardinal Newman. All called by God, none called the way you might suppose.

Yes, there are special considerations for married clergy. But even these are presupposed as God's own choices. The simple fact is, the Catholic Church relies on Him for these rules. He decided on a celibate clergy; not men. The overall rule is a celibate, holy and male priesthood. The other orders allow for holy women, and deacons, etc. The Pope is our authority on earth, as Christ setled it. You fail to see that saying, ''to pray that after the next Pope comes into office he will be a Protestant radical at heart and let parishes elect their own parish priests who they know are good, honest, moral men.''

Elected officials are not called by God. Priests are, but radical Popes aren't. Just remember, God is the Prime Mover and Shaker.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), August 16, 2002.

St. Paul was celibate, but the father of the church, St. Peter was not. Don't you think it is unfair for the pope to welcome in married Protestant ministers to become priests, and not allow people who grew up in the Catholic church the same rights to marriage and priesthood? Also, celibacy was not required until after the year 1100..it is just a practice..not a requirement. And don't you think it isn't fair for Eastern Catholic priests to be able to marry and Roman ones not granted the same privledge?

-- James Wright (jamesrwrightiii@yahoo.com), September 19, 2002.

Hello, James. I'll put some of your words in quotation marks before my replies.

"Don't you think it is unfair for the pope to welcome in married Protestant ministers to become priests, and not allow people who grew up in the Catholic Church the same rights to marriage and priesthood?"

No, it is not unfair. It is up to the pope and bishops to discern whether or not a man has a vocation to the priesthood -- and then to call those with vocations to come forward to be ordained (whether married or not). Their decisions in these matters are not subject to our judging as "fair" or "unfair." The converted ministers had no idea that they would some day be priests, so their marriages are not considered obstacles. Those who "grew up in the Church" have known about celibacy since they were little children.

"Also, celibacy was not required until after the year 1100 ... it is just a practice ... not a requirement."

We know that celibacy is a change-able discipline and that it is not even universally practiced within Catholicism. That year of yours, 1100, is very misleading. I believe that in 1079, it became mandatory throughout the entire West, but it had been mandatory in some places long before that. Moreover, it had been mandatory for all monks, both Eastern and Western, since the 200s. You need to read much more deeply into the history of celibacy, and you need to read about the subject of the "marital continence" of priests and their wives in the earliest centuries.

"And don't you think it isn't fair for Eastern Catholic priests to be able to marry and Roman ones not granted the same privledge?"

Eastern Catholic priests are not "able to marry." Rather, married Eastern Catholic men may be called to the priesthood. After ordination, they cannot get married. And after the death of their wife, they cannot re-marry. Eastern bishops are monks, all unmarried. This is their ancient practice.

God bless you.
John PS: Here is an interesting essay on celibacy and its roots in scripture.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 19, 2002.

Mr. Wright:

If the Church started someday soon ordaining married men in our Latin rite, would that necessarily give me a vocation? I'm married. I love the holy priesthood of the Catholic Church. But, no-- I haven't felt any call to the priesthood, not even when I was single.

If just supposing, God did call me; by some exterior urge-- and in my heart I resisted (it happens often to men), would that be unfair? I think it would be unfair to God. But let Him be the Judge.

Just as in life there must be impediments to the married state, there are impediments to holy orders. The Church has authority to place and to remove the celibacy impediment. Just as it sees the impediment to some matrimonies and has no choice but to refuse the sacrament to many people.

Take divorcees, as an example: If a Catholic divorcee decides he/she'll remarry, it must be OUTSIDE the faith. Sorry, the divorce is an impediment. Our priests are celibate by discipline. Women are not allowed in the Catholic priesthood. The impediments here are plain.

To demand ''fair'' treatment, some folks leave the Church. Some vocation !!! I hate to admit, some ex-Catholic women are now priests-- in another church! Would you support that a married man wanting to enter the priesthood might leave the Catholic Church? Would this be rationally considered a true call from God? Not likely, Hmmm?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 20, 2002.

rose

here is your ansawer to your question. Why priest are not married. first of all they are married to the catholic church. If priest were allowed to marry they would be focusing on his wife and children not on jesus or the other responsablitys that they have. My family was having a hard time with some things and a friend of ours you is a priest came to stay with us for a fews days in a our time of need the question arose from another friend that was staying with us also. It was why cant priest be married??? and this was father forsman answer. If I was married I wouldnt be able to be here for my friends in a time of need I would be with my family right now. rose I really hope this helps you and understanding why priest are not married. but if you have futher question go and ask a catholic priest

-- garland villa (gar_villa@hotmail.com), October 19, 2002.

I agree with you Rose. It would be hard on the family most of all. I don't know if this would be a factor, but priest don't get paid all to much and it would just be simpilar for priest to stay unmarried.

-- sean (sean@netlane.com), May 12, 2004.

sorry for another post, but I meant to say that I agree with garland

-- sean (sean@netlane.com), May 12, 2004.

I didn't have time to read all the posts, so please excuse me if this is already answered. Would a man who leaves the priesthood be allowed to be a deacon? Or are they out of the Church for good?

-- mark advent (adventm5477@earthlink.net), May 13, 2004.

No, once a preist always a preist. Ordination leaves an indelable (sp) mark. A man who was a preist remains so. What happens when he 'leaves the preisthood' is that he no longer has the right to function as a preist. As such, he could never become a Deacon. This is also true in the other direction. "The norms for the formation of permanent deacons/ the directory for the ministry and life of permanent deacons" clearly spells out that a permanent Deacon can never become a preist. (note: all preists go through a temporary deaconite.)

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), May 13, 2004.

From Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[168.] “A cleric who loses the clerical state in accordance with the law . . . is prohibited from exercising the power of order”. It is therefore not licit for him to celebrate the sacraments under any pretext whatsoever save in the exceptional case set forth by law, nor is it licit for Christ’s faithful to have recourse to him for the celebration, since there is no reason which would permit this according to canon 1335. Moreover, these men should neither give the homily nor ever undertake any office or duty in the celebration of the sacred Liturgy, lest confusion arise among Christ’s faithful and the truth be obscured.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 13, 2004.

Dano you said that "The norms for the formation of permanent deacons/ the directory for the ministry and life of permanent deacons" clearly spells out that a permanent Deacon can never become a preist."

I personally know a permanent deacon, who after his wife died, was ordained as a priest.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 13, 2004.

This is from the Basic Norms for the Formation of Permanent Deacons:

5. The specific vocation to the permanent Diaconate presupposes the stability of this Order. Hence ordination to the Priesthood of non-married or widowed deacons must always be a very rare exception, and only for special and grave reasons. The decision of admission to the Order of Presbyters rests with the diocesan bishop, unless impediments exist which are reserved to the Holy See. Given the exceptional nature of such cases, the diocesan bishop should consult the Congregation for Catholic Education with regard to the intellectual and theological preparation of the candidate, and also the Congregation for the Clergy concerning the programme of priestly formation and the aptitude of the candidate to the priestly ministry.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 13, 2004.